European Journal of Sport Science, May 2009; 9(3): 133140
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The development of skill and tactical competencies during a season of badminton
PETER A. HASTIE1, OLEG A. SINELNIKOV2, & A. J. GUARINO3 1
Department of Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 2Department of Kinesiology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA, and 3Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Abstract In this study, we examined the development of skill competence and tactical knowledge of 41 eighth-grade students (mean age 13.6 years) as they completed a season of badminton conducted following the features of Sport Education. Using data from students’ performance on badminton skills tests, their competence in game play, and their tactical knowledge, it was determined that these students made significant improvements in their ability to not only control the shuttle, but also to hit it more aggressively. This resulted in improvements in both the selection (what shot to make) and execution (ability to produce the desired shot) dimensions of their game play. In addition, the students demonstrated significant improvements in their ability to select tactical solutions and make arguments for those decisions when watching videotaped performances of badminton games. The key explanation for the development of competence in this setting was that the structure of the Sport Education season allowed for significant practice opportunities, and that the authenticity and consequential nature of the game play helped move all but weak novice students from a more cooperative version of net-game play to one where tactical decision making and execution was valued.
Keywords: Badminton, physical education, skill development, tactical development
Introduction Sport Education is a curriculum and instruction model designed to provide authentic, educationally rich sport experiences for students in the context of school physical education (Siedentop, Hastie, & van der Mars, 2004). Teachers using the model present a series of sports lessons to students that mimic the authentic form of the chosen activity as it would take place within the larger culture. Called ‘‘seasons’’, these units of physical education include important components of formal sport such as persisting teams (students remain on the same team for the entire unit), affiliation (students wear team uniforms and develop their own team names and identity), formal competition (matches played count towards a season championship), culminating events (it is the nature of a sport season to culminate with an event that often determines the champion), record keeping (scores and statistics of all kinds are kept to judge
success within a season and to provide a history and sense of standards for participating in that particular level of sport), and festivity (which adds meaning to the participation and creates a context for exciting participation). Nonetheless, it is important to note that Sport Education is not a direct simulation of institutionalized sport. It differs in three distinct ways. First, there is a requirement that all students participate equally at all points in the season. Second, there is developmentally appropriate competition that utilizes modified games and equipment. Third, students take roles in addition to that of a player. That is, they have organizational (coach or equipment manager) and officiating (referee, linesman or scorekeeper/statistician) roles that are designed to provide students with the chance to learn about the sport from a broader perspective than that of a player. Responses by both students and teachers to Sport Education have been positive, and results from a
Correspondence: P. A. Hastie, Department of Kinesiology, Auburn University, 2050 Memorial Coliseum, Auburn, AL 36849-5323, USA. E-mail:
[email protected] ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2009 European College of Sport Science DOI: 10.1080/17461390802542564
134
P. A. Hastie et al.
number of nations (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States, Korea, and Russia) have been consistent. As an executive summary (for extensive reviews of the literature, see Kinchin, 2006; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005), students report that they improve in their skill over the phases of a season, and particularly lower skilled children hold this as their strongest perception. Students also have a strong preference for the persisting team concept. For those who are frequently picked last and are alienated in large teams, being on a small team of four or five players where they have some responsibility and their team-mates are helping them improve, this format is particularly empowering. For teachers, one of the major attractions of Sport Education is that it frees the teacher from much of the formal instructional demands of lessons (Alexander & Luckman, 2001), allowing them to attend to more pressing needs which otherwise do not receive attention. These include student assessment, working with individual students in skill development, and attending to the affective domain. All of these features have revitalized teachers’ enthusiasm towards teaching physical education, which Alexander and colleagues (Alexander, Taggart, & Thorpe, 1996) described as giving teachers ‘‘a spring in their steps’’. The overriding goals of the Sport Education curriculum and instruction model are the development of competent, literate, and enthusiastic sports players (Siedentop et al., 2004). To date, evidence of ‘‘enthusiastic participation’’ is solid and replicated, while evidence of ‘‘literacy’’ is emerging and consistent. With specific regard to competency, Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2005) point out conflicting viewpoints on the ability of Sport Education seasons to achieve this goal. Specifically, Wallhead and O’Sullivan note that teachers in New Zealand (see Grant, 1992) and Australia (see Alexander et al., 1996) have shown that students’ skills and play improved more with Sport Education than with previous curricular approaches. On the other hand, they also note that other studies make known teachers’ scepticism with regard to the development of motor skill as an outcome (e.g. Alexander, 1994, Alexander & Luckman, 2001; Alexander, Taggart, & Medland, 1993). What is consistent, however, is Wallhead and O’Sullivan’s (2005, p. 196) assertion that ‘‘the systematic quantification of changes in student tactical knowledge and performance as a result of Sport Education unit/s has been sparse’’, and that ‘‘there remains a dearth of empirical evidence to validate these [anecdotal] claims’’ (p. 202). In fact, the only empirical study that has provided quantitative data on students’ game performance was conducted by Hastie (1998). In that study, in which students played an invasion game using a Frisbee, the efficiency index (a measure of skill and elemen-
tary tactical awareness) for the team and selected individuals showed significant improvement from the beginning phases of the season to the end. During a 30-lesson unit of instruction, the students became more competent and had higher success rates in receiving the disc, and they improved the percentage of completed passes as well as those that were offensively threatening towards the opposition. The deficiency of empirical data on student tactical knowledge coupled with the need for a more systematic analysis of the capacity of Sport Education to achieve competency contributed to the reason for this study, which was to examine the development of students’ skill, game play, and tactical understanding as they progressed through a season of badminton.
Methods Design The aim of this study was to determine if a particular curriculum intervention would lead to improvement in students’ skill and tactical understanding within two intact eighth-grade classes from a rural school in central Russia. The teacher had moderate badminton content knowledge, was experienced in Sport Education instruction, and designed a season following the key features of Sport Education. It was not the goal of this study to demonstrate the superiority of this model over other forms of instruction, but merely to determine if improvement scores were possible in this context. As a result, a pre-test/posttest design was used without the concurrent application of a control group. Participants The participants in this study were 41 eighth-grade students (18 boys and 23 girls, mean age 13.6) from a rural school in central Russia. The school had a total enrolment of 600 from grades 1 to 11 (the typical organization of a Russian school). The students were enrolled in two classes, and met four times a week over a period of 5 weeks for a total of 18 lessons. Each lesson was scheduled for 45 min. The teacher of the season had experience teaching Sport Education across a number of grades, both at this school and other local schools in the region. The classes participating in the study had also received prior instruction in Sport Education as part of their physical education programme. In their previous Sport Education season, students participated in a season of basketball lasting an academic quarter and performed similar duty roles as in this study. The institutional review board of the authors’ university approved the research protocol, and parents or legal
Skill in sport education guardians of each student signed the informed consent letter to allow their child to participate in the study.
Lesson content The students participated in a season of badminton designed and taught following the principles of Sport Education (seasons, affiliation, formal competition, record keeping, festivity, and culminating event). It is important to note that the students had no prior badminton instruction during physical education. Following a series of lessons that focused on the development of basic badminton skills, the students in each class were divided into five mixed-ability teams based upon their performance on a number of skills and tactical knowledge tests. The students stayed on these teams for the remainder of the season, participating in a series of practice matches, and later a formal competition. The students also took team administrative roles including equipment manager, coach and statistician, and during practice and competitive games umpired matches and kept statistics. The complete season outline is shown in Table I.
Instruction and treatment validity Given this study served to determine the influence of a particular curriculum model on student learning, it is critical to validate that the instruction was indeed consistent within the accepted standards for that model. Metzler (2001) lists key procedures through which determination of acceptable fidelity might be achieved. These are: (1) the researcher must fully explain the model under study, noting all of its relevant features (see Table 1); (2) the researcher must then document that those features were in fact present in the instructional unit, by itemizing the key
teacher and/or learner processes designed into the model, and then verifying that those processes were sufficiently present in the unit; and (3) demonstrating that the necessary contextual and operational requirements for the model were met. This section will discuss procedures (2) and (3), given that a more complete outline of the Sport Education season is presented earlier in the article. Itemizing teacher and learner processes. To confirm the behavioural fidelity of the teacher’s instruction according to Sport Education, one should see significant patterns across the time of the unit. Hastie (1998) suggests that during the course of instruction in Sport Education, one should see evidence of the following: (i) decreasing time allocated to teacher management and direct instruction as the season progresses; (ii) an increasing percentage and frequency of observing behaviours; and (iii) decreasing involvement in skill instruction by the teacher resulting in a decrease of skill practice (Figure 1) and increasing participation in game play and officiating commitments by the students as the season progresses. The frequency and percentage of selected teacher behaviours and student lesson participation from two representative lessons in each phase were collected following real-time recording principles and using the analysis software developed by Sharpe and Koperwas (2000). Figure 1 shows the summary data for teacher behaviour and time allocation across the three phases of the season (skills practice, practice competition, formal competition). It can be seen from this figure that the teacher’s instructional pattern, as well as the engagement of the students in various participatory contexts, replicated those expected during Sport Education instruction. That is, during the early lessons, there was more time spent in direct teacher instruction, with the teacher being the primary provider of organization
Table I. Badminton season plan Lesson 1 26 710
1114
Content Introduction Beginning skills Whole-class skill instruction Pre-season scrimmages
135
Teacher’s role
Students’ roles
Class leader
Participant
Class leader
Participant
Head coach Referee advisor
Coaches, players Learn duty role, practise duty roles Coaches, players Duty team roles Coaches, players Duty team roles Coaches, players Duty team roles
1516
Formal competition Play-offs
Head coach Programme manager Programme manager
17 18
Championship games Awards presentations
Programme manager Master of ceremonies
136
P. A. Hastie et al.
Figure 1. Teacher behaviour and time allocation to practice and games across the season.
The following data were collected for this study: (i) students’ performance on badminton skills tests, (ii) students’ competence in game play, and (iii) students’ tactical knowledge.
administered by one of the researchers for both the pre- and post-tests. The clear test has a reported reliability of 0.96 using an oddeven correlation and was selected for two reasons. First, it is easy to administer, but more importantly, it replicates a critical skill strongly associated with success in badminton game play. As Rink and colleagues (Rink, French, & Graham, 1996) have noted, the ability to exert force on a badminton shuttle is necessary for students before they can incorporate tactics into their play. Rink et al. (1996) also contend that in developing skill in sports, minimal levels of object control are necessary. To gather data on the progression of object control (a feature critical to successful game play), all students completed a wall volley test before the study, and as part of their team practice during days 3, 7, 11, and 15. Based upon the tests of French and Salter (1949), Lockhart and McPherson (1949), and Miller (1951), this wall volley task involved students continuously hitting a shuttle to a wall for 30 s, and scoring the total number of successful hits. A successful hit was defined as one that landed above a line that was net height from the floor, and from a distance of 5 feet from the wall. During lessons three and seven, each student was observed in conjunction with the team coach. After confirming the student coach was accurate in administering the test (reliability greater than 90%), the scores in the remaining test dates were managed and reported by those student coaches.
Skills tests. The French Clear Test (Scott, Carpenter, French, & Kuhl, 1941) was administered as a pre-test (completed before the first lesson) and posttest (following the final lesson). This test involves the student receiving a serve, and then attempting to hit it back from across the net to the deepest part of the court. The court is divided into zones, with scores ranging from 0 to 5 depending upon where the shuttle lands. Ten trials are given. Due to the requirement for a consistent serve, the test was
Competency in game play. Each student was videotaped twice during the first 3 days of the season and twice again during the final 3 days of competition. Their performances during badminton game play were rated using the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI) (Oslin, Mitchell, & Griffin, 1998). In this paper, the definitions for the Decision Making Index (DMI) and the Skill Execution Index (SEI) were used. That is, the DMI was scored as the
and lesson content. Most of the students’ time was spent learning skills. During the practice games, teacher management remained high, with skill instruction becoming more incidental during game play. The later lessons of the season saw a reverse of the initial pattern, with the students being primarily responsible for the conduct of the lessons through independent team practice, as well as self-managing competitions. Demonstrating the presence of necessary contextual and operational requirements. As Metzler (2001) has noted, by design an instructional model needs to have in place essential contextual conditions such as teacher expertise and student readiness for the model to have any chance of working. In this particular study, the teacher had taught a number of seasons of Sport Education in Russian schools, and the students had also participated successfully in Sport Education seasons. There was sufficient equipment so that each student had a badminton racquet, and each team had its own court and warmup area. The gymnasium was large and with a high ceiling, allowing for unrestricted game play.
Data collection
Skill in sport education number of appropriate decisions made divided by the number of inappropriate decisions made. An appropriate decision was defined as a shot that made the opponent move forwards, backwards or sideways (that is, to take them away from their home or recovery position), or one that gave the opponent little time to react to the oncoming shuttlecock. The GPAI defines an SEI as the number of efficient skill executions divided by the number of inefficient skill executions. An efficient skill execution was defined as a shot that crossed the net and would have landed in court. Game performance was calculated using the formula [DMISEI]/2. Consistent with the recommendations for reliability with the GPAI, only data for which the percentage of agreement between two coders exceeded 80% percent were included in the analysis. For this study, this represented 92% of all observations. This reliability was determined through a twostep process. First, a 10-min training to criterion tape was produced, which included samples of three badminton games. From this tape, two observers discussed the parameters of both decision and execution components to determine consistency in interpretation. Second, the observers practised independent coding on a second 10-min tape to the point where they reached a greater than 0.80 agreement criterion. Tactical knowledge. The video-based game understanding test procedure developed by Blomqvist and colleagues (Blomqvist, Luhtanen, Laakso, & Keskinen, 2000) was used to determine changes in the students’ ability to solve tactical problems by selecting solutions and arguments for their decisions. In this procedure, students watch a series of badminton rallies and then determine the most appropriate response by one player, as he or she is getting ready to play a stroke. Students are asked to select the appropriate action out of three alternatives and chose two arguments from a set of ten as to why they chose that option. This test was administered to all participants in the study prior to the first day of instruction of the season and one day after the final lesson.
137
the video analysis, (c) the reason response for the video analysis, (d) overall GPAI, (e) the skill execution component of the GPAI, and (f) the decisionmaking component of the GPAI.
Results Analysis of the data reveals information concerning (a) skill execution, (b) game play, and (c) tactical understanding.
Skill execution Figure 2 provides a graphical representation of student performance on the wall volley test, while Table II provides the mean and standard deviation scores. Results of the mixed ANOVA indicated a significant time main effect (F4,32 121.28, P B 0.001, partial h2 0.94). Follow-up pair-wise comparison indicated only two periods failed to achieve statistical significance. These periods were between the pre-test and lesson 3 and between lessons 7 and 11. In addition to the main effect, a significant interaction effect (F4,32 4.61, P 0.005, partial h2 0.36) was detected. Univariate follow-up tests identified statistically significant gender differences for lessons 3, 11, and 15, with boys demonstrating higher scores than girls. There were no statistically significant differences between the sexes for the pretest and lesson 7. Scores for the clear test improved from a mean of 19.03 (s 0.98) on the pre-test to a mean of 33.38 (s 0.81) at the end of the season. Mixed ANOVA indicated a significant main effect for time (i.e. pretest to post-test: F1,35 185.16, P B0.001, partial h2 0.84), but no significant interaction effect (F1,35 0.11, P 0.742). That is, there were no significant differences between the sexes across time.
Statistical analysis A 2 (gender) 5 (time) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, with the number of times the shuttle was hit against the wall as the dependent variable. A follow-up pair-wise comparison using the Bonferroni technique to control for family-wise error was then performed to determine any differences between the various testing times. A series of 2 (gender) 2 (time) mixed ANOVAs were conducted on the following dependent variables: (a) the clear test, (b) the decision response for
Figure 2. Students’ performance on the wall volley test across the season.
138
P. A. Hastie et al.
Table II. Means and standard deviations for the wall volley test throughout the season Lesson
Sex
Mean
s
0
Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys
12.30 10.44 11.88 15.17 19.56 22.21 21.30 24.79 25.88 32.15
4.39 3.52 4.71 4.22 4.94 2.59 3.55 4.83 4.68 3.82
3 7 11 15
Table III. Means and standard deviations for the GPAI data throughout the season
GPAI-1 GPAI-2 SEI-1 SEI-2 DMI-1 DMI-2
Game play Table III shows the results of the mixed ANOVA for the GPAI and its components. Overall, the students’ game play rating showed significant improvement, with average GPAI scores increasing from 1.19 in the earliest lessons to 4.08 during the formal competition. In addition to this significant time main effect (F1,35 135.59, P B0.001, partial h2 0.80), a significant interaction effect (F1,35 6.34, P 0.005, partial h2 0.15) was detected. With respect to the SEI, a significant time main effect (F1,35 147.97, P B0.001, partial h2 0.81) but a non-significant interaction effect (F1,35 0.02, P 0.893) were evident. For the DMI, however, both a significant time main effect (F1,35 90.96, P B0.001, partial h2 0.72) and significant interaction (F1,35 6.61, P 0.015, partial h2 0.16) were observed. In this case, the boys showed better decision making within game play than the girls during the games played at the end of the season.
Tactical understanding Results of the mixed ANOVA with the initial decision (i.e. where should you hit the shuttle?) as the dependent variable reported a significant time main effect (F1,34 32.50, P B0.001, partial h2 0.49), but a non-significant interaction (F1,34 0.15, P 0.70). Scores improved from a mean of 27.64 (s 0.60) at the pre-test to a mean of 30.98 (s 0.49) following the season. The results of the mixed ANOVA with ‘‘reason’’ (i.e. why I would hit the shuttle there) as the dependent variable also reported a significant time main effect (F1,34 48.25, P B0.001, partial h2 0.59) and a non-significant interaction (F1,34 0.23, P 0.630). In this case, the students improved from a pre-test average of 21.68 (s 1.28) to one of 28.55 (s 1.13) following the season.
Sex
Mean
s
Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys
1.18 1.20 3.48 4.76 1.52 1.46 3.20 3.18 .68 .94 3.78 6.34
0.62 0.28 1.47 2.01 0.71 0.46 1.63 0.96 0.29 0.27 1.72 3.80
Discussion The main findings of the present study demonstrate that students can make significant improvements in their skill, the quality of their game play, and basic understanding of tactics following a season of Sport Education. Siedentop (1994) has suggested that a competent sportsperson has sufficient skills to participate in games satisfactorily and can understand and execute strategies appropriate to the complexity of the game being played. By the end of the season, most students were able to control the shuttle and hit it sufficiently hard so that they could engage in rallies that moved their opponents in various directions around the court. For those who began as what could be described weak novices, they were able at least to engage in cooperative rallying. Skill development issues In discussing skill development, it is not the intent of the authors to suggest that the Sport Education model is a better methodology for teaching children to play sport compared with, say, direct instruction or a personalized system of instruction (Metzler, 2006). What the results of this study do demonstrate is that given the contextual conditions present in this study, students can develop some competency. Those conditions included (i) a teacher who was experienced in teaching Sport Education, but who had little experience with badminton itself, (ii) a group of students who had previous experience with the model but not the sport, and (iii) a season of sufficient length (eighteen 45-min lessons) in which the students could get significant practice time. Quality of game play issues As has been noted in previous studies of game play during Sport Education (Hastie, 1998), the model contains specific instructional features that promote improved performance in game play. Relating to
Skill in sport education Rink and colleagues’ (1996) prescription for successful game instruction, Sport Education seasons allow time for students to play, they encourage pedagogy where skills transfer to the game, and unit length is extended. Furthermore, in the earliest forms of game play the scores do not count, and therefore the students are playing without the stress of having to win and with the opportunity to experiment tactically. French and colleagues’ (French, Werner, Taylor, Hussey, & Jones, 1996) intervention demonstrated that even after 6 weeks of instruction, students were continuing to improve in skill execution and game play. The data from this study would support a similar claim that skillful game play takes time. While performance on any timed test would approach a ceiling effect, it can be seen from Figure 2 that students were continuing to master control of the shuttle. Of particular note is the lack of improvement from pre-test though the initial lessons of the season. It was only after lesson 7 that a significant improvement was demonstrated. This is yet another piece of empirical evidence in support of having longer units in physical education, which is one of the foundational features in the case of Sport Education. A move towards extended units may well be a challenge in some physical education contexts, especially those working within a strict, state-controlled, and mandated curriculum (for example, the limitations placed on British physical education by the Department for Education and Skills and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). Nonetheless, it behoves curriculum decision makers to take heed of the maxim ‘‘less is more’’ and to avoid the skill development pitfalls of curricular that are ‘‘a mile wide and an inch deep’’. Nonetheless, it is still possible to conduct successful Sport Education seasons in cases where the skill dimensions of the game are not very sophisticated. Ultimate Frisbee and some handball games come to mind. Tactical understanding issues One of the more interesting findings of this study was the improvement in the students’ ability to solve tactical problems. While previous research has focused on the differences between experts and novices in badminton (e.g. Blomqvist, Luhtanen, & Laakso, 2000), it was evident through this season that the students changed the way they understood the game without a lot of specific intervention from the teachers. While it is recognized that some general tactics can be developed through simply playing enough games (which is indeed a feature of Sport Education), it could also be that the game of badminton itself presents reasonably simple tactical
139
solutions for students to solve. That is, the sophistication of decisions relate mostly to whether one should hit the shuttle to the front or back of the court. In addition to playing games, however, students during seasons of Sport Education are also active observers in their roles as officials. It may be that by not only playing games, but watching other students in a focused way, helps promote tactical awareness. That is, as an official, students may be thinking along the lines of ‘‘if I were on the court, where would I have hit the shuttle’’, or perhaps in some cases, ‘‘why on earth did he hit it there?’’ Despite the reasoning for this increased tactical awareness, the results of this study confirm previous research that suggests skilful game play does take time. Analysis of the decision-making components of the GPAI data shows that the students had little tactical sophistication in their play until the end of the season. That is, similar to the students in Rink and colleagues’ (1996) research, initial game play was cooperative, and only towards the end of the season did the students try to manipulate their opponents to positions that were defensively threatening. A casual examination of rally length would show that in the beginning lessons rallies were short as the students grappled to control the shuttle, with middle lessons having extended series of cooperative hits, and the final lessons having a mix between short rallies (where the opponent was able to kill a weak shot) and lengthier rallies (where each player was able to manipulate the other’s court position, but also being able to recover with strong clear shots). These findings again behove those adopting Sport Education as a curriculum model to tend towards longer units of instruction as is recommended. Conclusion The results of this study show that given ample opportunity to practise and to participate in games, students’ performance on badminton skills tests, their competence in game play, and their tactical knowledge can improve during a unit designed according to the principles of Sport Education. Nonetheless, since Sport Education is described as a flexible curriculum, it is important to note that the pedagogy adopted in presenting Sport Education may differ from teacher to teacher and from season to season. Furthermore, the extent of student control may vary from season to season. It would be worthwhile investigating the development of skill and tactical competences during Sport Education relative to students having more or less control of the season. In addition, further research is needed to examine the student skill and tactical competences during Sport Education in other contexts than net or
140
P. A. Hastie et al.
invasion games (e.g. gymnastics or stepping seasons), with a variety of ages and other schools.
References Alexander, K. (1994). Developing sport education in Western Australia. Aussie Sports Action, 5, 89. Alexander, K., & Luckman, J. (2001). Australian teachers’ perceptions and uses of the sport education curriculum model. European Physical Education Review, 7, 243267. Alexander, K., Taggart, A., & Medland, A. (1993). Sport education in physical education: Try before you buy. Australian Council for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation National Journal, 40, 1623. Alexander, K., Taggart, A., & Thorpe, S. T. (1996). A spring in their steps? Possibilities for professional renewal through sport education in Australian schools. Sport, Education and Society, 1, 2346. Blomqvist, M., Luhtanen, P., & Laakso, L. (2000). Expertnovice differences in game performance and game understanding of youth badminton players. European Journal of Physical Education, 5, 208219. Blomqvist, M. T., Luhtanen, P., Laakso, L., & Keskinen, E. (2000). Validation of a video-based game-understanding test procedure in badminton. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19, 325337. French, E., & Salter, E. (1949). Study of skill tests in badminton for college women. Research Quarterly, 20, 257272. French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., & Jones, J. (1996). The effects of a 6-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 439463. Grant, B. C. (1992). Integrating sport into the physical education curriculum in New Zealand secondary schools. Quest, 44, 304 316. Hastie, P. A. (1998). Skill and tactical development during a sport education season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 368379.
Kinchin, G. D. (2006). Sport Education: A review of the research In D. Kirk, M. O’Sullivan, & D. Macdonald (Eds.), Handbook of research in physical education (pp. 596609). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lockhart, A., & McPherson, F. A. (1949). The development of a test of badminton playing ability. Research Quarterly, 20, 402 405. Metzler, M. W. (2001). Implications of models-based instruction for research on teaching: A focus on teaching games for understanding. Paper presented at the International Conference on Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport, Waterville Valley, NH, 2 August. Metzler, M. W. (2006). Instructional models for physical education. Scottsdale. AZ: Holcomb Hathaway Publishing. Miller, F. A. (1951). A badminton wall volley test. Research Quarterly, 22, 208213. Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S.A., & Griffin, L. L. (1998). The Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 231243. Rink, J. E., French, K. E., & Graham, K. C. (1996). Implications for practice and research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 490502. Scott, M. G., Carpenter, A., French, A., & Kuhl, L (1941). Achievement examinations in badminton. Research Quarterly, 12, 242253. Sharpe, T. L., & Koperwas, J. (2000). Software assist for education and social science settings: Behavior Evaluation Strategies and Taxonomies (BEST) and accompanying qualitative applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage-Scolari. Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport Education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Siedentop, D., Hastie, P., & van der Mars, H. (2004). Complete guide to Sport Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Wallhead, T., & O’Sullivan, M. (2005). Sport Education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 181210.
