Tennis Racket Length Comparisons and Their Effect on Beginning College Players' Playing Success and Achievement

Transcription

1 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION, 1997,16, O 1997 HUMAN KINETICS PUBLISHERS, INC. Tennis Racket Length Comparisons and Their Effect on Beginning College Players' Playing Success and Achievement Tracy L. Pellett Northern Illinois University Curt L. Lox Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of three racket lengths (26,27, and 28 inches) in relation to beginning player skills test and last 5-day game playing achievement over an 18-day tennis unit. Participants (N = 83) were randomly assigned to one of three racket length groups in one of four instructional classes. Analysis of the skills test data indicated that students who used the shorter 26-inch racket attained greater achievement for the forehand groundstroke. However, no differences were reported between racket lengths for either the forehand or backhand groundstroke when examining game-play results or for the backhand groundstroke during skills testing. Dual and lifetime activities are major components in school and recreational programming. With an increase in leisure time and recreational facilities, sports such as tennis have become immensely popular. All learners should have the greatest opportunity to reach a level of success sufficient to sustain their desire to continue playing. The best way for teachers to help in this process is to provide instructional environments that foster success (French et a]., 1991). One of the easiest and most useful ways to reduce the difficulty or complexity of a task and consequently foster success in learning new skills is to modify the equipment or its arrangement (Rink, 1992). Several studies have reported positive correlations regarding equipment modifications (e.g., lighter and/or smaller balls and lower goals) and learner achievement for team sports such as basketball (Chase, Ewing, Ling, & George, 1994; Satern, Messier, & Keller-McNulty, 1989) and volleyball (Pellett, Henschel-Pellett, & Harrison, 1994). However, research in the comparative merits of equipment modifications for individual and dual lifetime activities (e.g., tennis) has been scarce. In spite of the lack of empirical support, several authors (Brown, 1995; Evans, Tracy L. Pellett is with the Department of Physical Education at Northern Illinois University, 224 Anderson Hall, DeKalb, IL Curt L. Lox is with the Department of Health, Recreation, and Physical Education at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL

2 RACKET LENGTH AND ACHIEVEMENT ; Harrison, Blakemore, Buck, & Pellett, 1996; Kessel, 1989; Rink, 1992; Roberton, 1977) recommend that sports that use implements (e.g., tennis) be modified (e.g., increased hitting area, shorter implement length) to improve beginners' skill success. Increased hitting area was believed to be especially beneficial for beginners of tennis as it would allow for a greater chance of the ball making contact with the racket's "sweet spot," the area on strings that gives the most smooth, powerful, controlled shot (Brown, 1995). Shorter implements were also found to be beneficial since the decreased length would provide for greater racket control (Ward & Groppel, 1980). Studies conducted in tennis (Blanksby, Ellis, &Elliot, 1979; Elliot, Blanksby, & Ellis, 1980; Gruetter & Davis, 1985) have focused solely on differences between racket head surface area and player achievement. Few studies have exarnined the relationship between racket length and achievement. Blanksby et al. (1979) indicated that beginning and experienced players scored significantly higher on a forehand volley skills test when using oversized rackets (1 10 square inch hitting surface) as compared to using standard-sized rackets (95 square inch hitting surface). No significant differences between oversized and standard-sized rackets were discovered when testing the serve, backhand volley, and groundstrokes. Gruetter and Davis (1985) indicated that both intermediate and beginning players achieved higher skills test scores while using an oversized racket than a standard racket for the groundstrokes, volleys, and serve. Elliot et al. (1980) investigated the effects of racket head size from a biomechanical perspective and reported that oversized rackets produced lower vibration levels and higher rebound velocities than their standard-sized counterparts. Thus, there was a greater chance of the oversized racket generating greater power in the shot. Although the test results of these studies tend to support the use of oversized rackets while learning tennis, further research examining the effects of other equipment variables (racket length) and achievement is needed. In addition, a greater analysis of actual playing performance and success is needed in relation to such modifications. The examination of players' daily responses to an instructional variable (e.g., racket modification) is important because it provides a clear picture of how learners are directly affected by that variable. Performance trials are a particularly strong measure for determining success and achievement because every player's trials are counted and categorized as being successful or unsuccessful (Silverman, 1985a). For example, at the end of a practice session, a player could have 28 successful trials and 2 unsuccessful trials for a skill being taught. Obviously, this player was having a great deal of success for this skill in relation to the task presented. This information has been useful for a variety of research studies examining the relationship between daily trials and achievement. Dugas (1983) showed moderate to high correlations with archery practice trials and achievement (pretest to posttest improvement). Silverman (1985a) reported similar findings for swimming. Ashy, Lee, and Landin (1988) reported that the total amount of learning trials for a soccer kick-up skill was not nearly as important as the number of trials correctly practiced. Thus, simply practicing without concern for appropriateness did not enhance skill acquisition. Similar results were also reported by other investigators examining volleyball (Buck, Harrison, & Bryce, 1990; Pellett & Harrison, 1995; Pellett et al. 1994; Silverman, 1985b, 1990, 1993). Little is currently known about the relationship between skills test or performance trials and equipment modifications in tennis. Although intuition and peda-

3 492 PELLE'IT AND LOX gogical authors (Evans, 1980; Harrisonet al., 1996; Kessel, 1989; Rink, 1992; Roberton, 1977) suggested that beginners might capitalize from equipment modifications (i.e., shorter racket length), greater empirical study needs to be undertaken to support or refute these recommendations. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of three racket lengths (26,27, and 28 inches) in terms of player skills test and playing achievement over an l&day unit. Participants Method Participants were 83 undergraduate college students enrolled in four intact beginning tennis classes (41 males and 42 females; age M = 22.55, SD = 3.21). Although the participants reported between 0 and 10 years of tennis playing experience (M = 1.64, SD = 3.50), all but 2 individuals classified themselves as beginners with little or no formal instructional experience. Two certified physical education specialists, with more than 3 years of college tennis teachinglcoaching experience, served as the instructors for two classes each. Informed consent was obtained from each participant before the study began. Treatment/Equipment Modification Participants were instructed in one of four classes over an 18-day instructional unit. Each lesson lasted 50 minutes. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups balanced by gender. All groups used a Wilson "Hammer" 110-inch racket during skills tests, drills, and game-play. Racket weights ranged between 9.9 and 10.1 ounces (M = 10, SD =.05), and the frame balance points were between and inches (M = 14.94, SD =.06) as measured from the butt end to the head of the racket. All rackets were strung with 15-gauge synthetic nylon at a tension between 49 and 54 pounds (M = 50.6; SD = 1.5). The only significant difference between the rackets was their length. One treatment group used a 26-inch length racket, another the 27-inch racket, and the third the 28-inch rackets. It should be noted that the 27-inch racket is the normal length manufactured for and used by adult players. All treatment groups used Wilson balls during practice, games, and skills tests. New balls were provided for each separate class on the day of skills testing, and every third lesson. This was done to ensure that the liveliness of the tennis balls was consistent across groups, days, and skills tests. The teachers used their own preferred teaching style, content development, and methods throughout the study. This was done to eliminate potential confounding effects of a particular teacher, method, or style with racket length differences and served to enhance the external validity of the study. The only exception was for the last 5 days of each teacher's unit. These lessons were devoted to singles or doubles game play. This was planned so that similar tasks could be analyzed for treatment effects across classes within the same instructional time frame. Each teacher developed standardized lesson plans for their classes. This procedure ensured that both classes for each teacher received the same lesson content throughout the 18-day unit. It should be noted that video records corroborated each teacher's strict adherence to the developed lesson plans for all classes.

4 RACKET LENGTH AND ACHIEVEMENT 493 Achievement Measures Skills Tests. Students were pretested prior to and posttested immediately following the 1 &day unit using the forehand and backhand groundstroke test as outlined in the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance (AAHPERD) Tennis Skills Test Manual (Hensley, 1989). Prior to taking the test, all students were allowed a warm-up period of 5 minutes. The groundstroke test required players to hit 12 overhand tossed balls from their forehand side, followed by 12 balls from their backhand side. The first two tosses to each side served as practice, with the remaining 10 trials scored. Each of the 10 trials for both the forehand and backhand groundstroke are scored for placement and power. Shots landing deeper in the court received greater placement points (i.e., 1,2, 3,4) than those nearer to the net. Power points (i.e., 1, 2, 3) are determined by the distance the ball's second bound lands. The farther the distance off the second bounce, the more points scored. Each of the 10 tosses to either the forehand or backhand side have a maximum possible of 7 points. The reader is directed to the AAHPERD manual for a more detailed description of the skill tests. The tests were selected because of the ease of administration, gamelike qualities, and compatibility with the unit objectives and age level of the students. In addition, high correlation coefficients (r =.83) were found for college students of this age group when comparing forehand and backhand groundstroke performance scores and subjective ratings of experts (Hensley, 1989). Test-retest reliability coefficients for the three skills tests ranged from.81 to.86 (Hensley, 1989). Game Play. The last 5 days of game play lessons of the 18-day unit were videotaped from an elevated platform adjacent to the eight tennis courts. One camera was focused on every court so that all activity on the courts was recorded. The instructor of each class wore a wireless microphone to record the instructor's comments on videotape. Filming began as students entered the court area and ended after each class. Two research assistants coded, and tallied the forehand and backhand groundstrokes of each student in every game over the last 5 lessons. Play trials were coded successful if they were hit in such a way as to land in fair territory. For example, a player (e.g., singles game) returning a serve would have to hit the ball across the net and have it land within the singles boundaries for it to be coded successful. Balls hit outside the boundaries or into the net would be coded incorrect. All coding was performed over a one-month period by two research assistants who were familiar with, ahd had previous experience coding, the variables under investigation. To assess coding biases and reliability, the research assistants recoded one randomly selected lesson from each of the classes (n = 4). Intraobserver percentage of agreement for both coders was above 94% for both forehand and backhand groundstrokes. Interobserver percentage of agreement was above 90%. Data Analysis Players' pretest scores were analyzed separately for each skill using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The independent variable was treatment group, and the dependent variable was the pretest scores of students for each skill. This was performed to determine whether there were any initial differences between groups. Scores from the pre- and posttests were also analyzed with a 2 x 2 (Teacher x Test Date) repeated measures ANOVA to test for teacher effects, which could have

5 494 PELLETT AND LOX masked treatment effects. Thus, we wanted to assess whether the teachers or their teaching method might have negated one another and masked possible treatment (i.e., racket length) effects. A separate ANOVA analyzed racket length differences with regard to overall achievement (posttest means) for each skill. The independent variable was treatment group, and the dependent variable was the posttest scores of students for each skill. A separate 3 x 2 (Racket Length x Test Date) repeated measures ANOVA was used to test the improvement of students in each group from pretest to posttest for each skill. Data for daily game-play achievement were organized into two categories for all treatment groups: daily total trials and daily successful trials. A separate 3 x 5 (Racket Length x Game Play Lesson) ANOVA was used to determine racket length differences with regard to students' last 5-day game-play achievement for each skill. Results The results are presented in two categories. The first category deals with skills test achievement, and the second discusses students' game-playing achievement. All analyses were tested at the.05 level. Skills Test Achievement Pretest and posttest means for each skills test for each group are shown in Table 1. An initial ANOVA on pretest scores revealed that the treatment groups were not significantly different from one another for either the forehand, F(2,80) =.Ol,p =.99, or for the backhand groundstroke, F(2, 80) =.75, p =.47. Thus, random assignment had sufficiently equated groups for preinstruction ability. A 2 x 2 (Teacher x Test Date) repeated-measures ANOVA revealed that learners taught by either teacher were similar to one another for both the forehand, F(1, 160) =.94, p =.33, and backhand groundstroke, F(1, 160) = 1.04, p =.25. Thus, it should be assumed that any effect of Table 1 Results for Forehand and Backhand Groundstrokes by Racket Length Treatment Group Pretest Posttest Racket type M SD M SD 26 inch 27 inch 28 inch 26 inch 27 inch 28 inch Forehand groundstroke Backhand groundstroke

6 RACKET LENGTH AND ACHIEVEMENT 495 teacher differences, teaching method differences, or both were negligible on learner skills test achievement. An ANOVA on posttest scores revealed significant differences between treatment groups for the forehand, F(2, 80) = 4.40, p =.01, whereas a trend for significance was revealed for the backhand, F(2,80) = 2.61, p =.07 (see Table 1). Post hoc analysis (Tukey) for the forehand groundstroke revealed that students using the shorter racket (i.e., 26-inch length) scored significantly (p <.05) higher on the posttest than did students using the standard (27 inch) or longest (28 inch) rackets. An "eyeball" examination of the posttest means for the backhand groundstroke seems to favor the 28 inch length racket group, although the differences are nonsignificant. A separate 3 x 2 (Racket Length x Test Date) repeated measures analysis of variance showed that students in each treatment group improved from pretest to posttest for each skill: forehand, F(1,160) = 25.82,~ =.0001; backhand, F(l, 160) = 20.47, p = Game-Play Achievement Data for daily game-play achievement were organized into two categories for all treatment groups: daily total trials and daily successful trials. A separate 3 x 5 (Racket Length x Game-Play Lesson) ANOVA was used to analyze each skill. The data analysis for daily total trials revealed no significant differences between treatments for the forehand groundstrokes, F(2, 15) = 1.31, p =.29, or backhand groundstrokes, F(2, 15) =.93 p =.41 (see Figure 1). The data analysis for daily successful trials revealed no significant differences between treatments for the forehand groundstrokes, F(2,15) = 1.11,~ =.35, or backhand groundstrokes, F(2, 15) = 1.46, p =.26 (see Figure 2). Discussion Two issues relative to the results of this study deserve exploration and explanation. The first is the effect of racket length on the skills test (pretest to posttest) achievement of students. The second relates to the more immediate effects of racket length with regard to students' daily game-play success. Students who used the shorter 26-inch length racket attained significantly higher posttest scores, on average, than those who used either the 27- or 28-inch length rackets for the forehand groundstroke. Thus, beginning players attain greater achievement for the forehand by using a shorter racket. This finding is important, as more than half of all the shots hit in a regulation game of tennis are forehand groundstrokes (Brown, 1995). Indeed, Pellett (1995) reported the forehand groundstroke was used five times more often than the backhand groundstroke in both beginner and intermediate college tennis classes. This finding also corroborates other authors (Chase et al. 1994; Evans, 1980; Harrison et al., 1996; Kessel, 1989; Rink, 1992; Roberton, 1977) calling for differential equipment for different skilled, sized, or aged players. Equipment modifications could also be especially important for low-skilled learners since research has shown that learners who experience greater achievement tend to remain involved in the activity over a longer period of time (Bandura, 1986). It is unclear why the effects of racket length for the backhand groundstroke skills test performance were not pronounced. A possible explanation might be

7 PELLETT AND LOX Forehand Groundstroke Inch Backhand Groundstroke Figure 1 -Total trials for each treatment group during the last 5 game-play days for the forehand and backhand groundstroke. related to instructors' teaching and students using the two-handed backhand. The two-handed backhand groundstroke might have allowed players to capitalize on the control the extra hand afforded, regardless of the length of the racket. Thus, racket length was not nearly as important for student control and success as an extra hand in performing the skill. Game-play results showed few total and successful learning trials for both skills across all treatment groups for the five game-day lessons measured. In fact, all learners attained, on average, less than one trial per minute for each of the 50-minute lessons for both skills. This finding is consistent with previous research (Buck et al. 1990), showing few learning trials and little improvement in regulation game-play

8 RACKET LENGTH AND ACHIEVEMENT 45 Forehand Groundstroke...I lnch Backhand Groundstroke Figure 2 - Successful trials for each treatment group during the last 5 game-play days for the forehand and backhand groundstroke. success for beginning learners. Obviously, if the task environment (game play) was too difficult or complex, other task-related variables (e.g., the length of the racket) would have made little difference with regard to performance success (French et al., 1991). Thus, regulation game play might have been too difficult for the beginning learners in this study to exhibit treatment effects. On the other hand, the skills tests performed in this study were much less complex (e.g., players receiving a tossed ball instead of a served or hit ball) and possibly, more developmentally matched to the learners' capabilities and sensitive to detecting treatment effects. Much practice time is needed to produce changes in performance of skills found in complex environments such as those in a regulation tennis game. Thus,

9 498 PELLETf AND LOX I modified games and drills that can help learners make the transition from very stable and simple environments (e.g., skills test) to ones that are more dynamic and game-like are needed (Ashy et al., 1988; Buck et al. 1990; Dugas, 1983; Pellett '& Hanison, 1995; Pellett et al. 1994; Silverman, 1985a, 1985b, 1990, 1993). It is our feeling that examining student performance through game play is important. However, by examining modified game play and daily drill activities during the entire unit, might be more helpful in the future in detecting treatment (i.e., equipment modification) differences with beginners. In conclusion, these findings propose that modification (shortening) of racket length can have a positive impact on beginners' forehand groundstroke tennis achievement. Future research should also assess various equipment modifications in other environmental conditions (drills vs. modified games vs. regulation games) over a greater number of lessons to see whether the effects are constant. In addition, more research is needed with regard to other modifications (i.e., ball size, racket weight) in tennis achievement and other lifetime sports. References Ashy, M., Lee, A,, & Landin, D. (1984, April). Effects of a mastery learning strategy on throwing accuracy and technique. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, Anaheim, CA. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Blanksby, B.A., Ellis, R., & Elliot, B.C. (1979). Performance characteristics of regularsized and over-sized tennis rackets. Australian Journal for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 86, Brown, J. (1995). Tennis: Steps to success (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Buck, M., Harrison, J., & Bryce, R. (1990). An analysis of learning trials and their relationship to achievement in volleyball. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, Chase, M., Ewing, M., Lirgg, C., & George, T. (1994). The effects of equipment modification on children's self-efficacy and basketball shooting performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, Dugas, D. (1983). Relationships among process and product variables in an experimental teaching unit (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44,2709A. Elliot, B.C., Blanksby, B.A., & Ellis, R. (1980). Vibrations and rebound velocity characteristics of conventional and oversized tennis rackets. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, Evans, J. (1980). Objectivity and game modification: The next step. The Australian Journal for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 3, French, K., Rink, J., Rikard, L., Mays, A., Lynn, S., & Werner, P. (1991). The effects of practice progressions on learning two volleyball skills. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 10, Gmetter, D., & Davis, T. (1985). Oversized vs. standard rackets: Does it really make a difference? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, Harrison, J.M., Blakemore, C.L., Buck, M.M., & Pellett, T.L. (1996). Instructional strategies for secondaryphysical education (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Times MirrorlMosby.

10 RACKET LENGTH AND ACHIEVEMENT 499 Hensley, (1989). Tennis skills test manual. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. Kessel, J. (1989). Youth volleyball. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Baton Rouge, LA. Pellett, T.L. (1995). [The relationship of engagement and practice trials to student achievement in tennis]. Unpublished raw data. Pellett, T.L., & Harrison, J.M. (1995). The effects of refinement on beginning female junior high school volieybai1 players' practice success and achievement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, Pellett, T.L., Henschel-Pellett, H.A., & Harrison, J.M. (1994). Influence of ball weight on junior high school girls' volleyball performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, Rink, J. (1992). Teachingphysical education for learning (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Times MinrorlMosby. Roberton, M. (1977). Developmental implications for games teaching. Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 48(7), 25. Satern, M.N., Messier, S.P., & Keller-McNulty, S. (1989). The effects of ball size and basket height on the mechanics of the basketball free throw. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 16, Silverman, S. (1985a). Relationship of engaged and practice trials to student achievement. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 5, Silverman, S. (1985b). Student characteristics mediating engagement-outcome relationships in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, Silverman, S. (1990). Linear and curvilinear relationships between student practice and achievement in physical education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6, Silverman, S. (1993). Student characteristics, practice, and achievement in physical education. The Journal of Educational Research, 87, Ward, T., Groppel. J.L. (1980). Sport implement selection: Can it be based upon anthropometric indicators? Motor Skills: Theory Into Practice, 4(2), Acknowledgments This study was funded through a grant by Wilson Sporting Goods Co., Chicago, Illinois. Special thanks are extended to Frank Garret, Jr., George Cisko, Po-Jen Cheng, Carl Scheie, and Steve Embry, and the entire Wilson Tech. Center Staff for their technical assistance and support throughout this project.