European Journal of Alternative Education Studies
ISSN: 2501-5915
ISSN-L: 2501-5915
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.290243
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF
COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
Semir Šejtanić1, Mustafa Džafić2
1
Phd, University "Džemal Bijedić" Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
2
Independent Researcher
Abstract:
The traditional school system included adopting as much information without critical
thinking while modern school tends to democratic education that is focused on the
development of individual abilities of each student and to develop his critical thinking.
In traditional teaching communication the teacher dominates. Such is the autocratic
communication which was reflected in a bossy role of teachers while in modern
teaching the emphasis is on the student's role and the democratic communication. In
pursuing the goal of non-experimental empirical research that we set in our study, we
found that there is a statistically significant connection between interpersonal
communication in teaching and students' success, and that those students whose
teachers mostly used the democratic model of communication in teaching achieved
statistically significantly better school achievements than those students whose teachers
use mainly the autocratic model of communication. The survey was conducted in
Bosnia and Herzegovina (Herzegovina-Neretva Canton) and a sample of 423
respondents (322 students and 101 teachers of primary schools). Through the results,
contents and messages of this paper we have tried to make you aware of the importance
of this segment of communication in the learning process and as such to make it the
subject of everyday questioning and continuous work that should lead to its
improvement, and thus to improving the quality of the entire educational process.
Keywords: communication, education, communication skills, quality teaching
1. Introduction
Communication between students and teachers, i.e. communication between all
subjects of the teaching process is an important factor in quality schools. Students in
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
© 2015 – 2017 Open Access Publishing Group
1
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
quality schools use democratic means of communication, and achieve better results in
learning. To help the students learn to work well, it is necessary to understand that to
us all the quality of life is extremely important. Quality school claims that all people
have five basic needs: love, power, freedom, fun and survival. Quality is everything
that meets one or more basic needs. The success of students in school is better if the
school has quality. Quality school implies a democratic school, democratic form of
communication, taking into account all the participants of the educational process.
Caspe (2003) believes that the preparation of teachers in professional development
programs should actively promote the development of communication skills for
teachers. Lunenburg (2010) investigated the factors that may facilitate or impede the
process of communication and its impact on the effectiveness of teaching.
He noted four categories of barriers to effective communication: process barriers,
physical barriers, semantic barriers and psychological barriers, and he stressed the
active listening as one of the conditions of successful teaching. The tendency of modern
school is for students to be active participants in all phases of the teaching process, the
aim is quality work which is based on a democratic, open and stimulating pedagogical
communication. Today the teacher should not be only a teacher and evaluator, but
more and more a planner, programmer, diagnostician, researcher, organizer, guide,
innovator, advisor and educator. The more the teacher implements these modern
functions his style of work is less classic authoritarian and more inventive and
democratic Ilić,
:
. William Glasser for the needs of the modern school finds a
solution in quality education that is not based on coercion and autocratic
communication. According to the author, "a successful teacher is the one who manages to
convince not half or three quarters but all of his or her students to do well in school." (Glasser,
1994: 25).
Quality school has six conditions for quality work (Glasser, 1999: 36) as follows:
1. Class environment should be enjoyable and stimulating
2. The students should be asked to work only on something useful
3. The students are asked to do their best
4. The students are asked to evaluate and improve their work
5. Quality work always feels good
6. Quality work is never destructive
Quality school requires quality teachers. There is a wide range of tasks to be
carried out by a modern teacher: new teaching programs, new teaching strategies, new
student role, the use of different sources of knowledge, training students for permanent
education Stevanović and Ajanović,
, p.
.
Jersild classified teachers' characteristics "that students love most":
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
2
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
Human qualities: kindness, cheerfulness, naturalness, sociability, good humor,
sense of humor
stable, disciplined, impartial
good health
Quality related to the attitude of teachers to discipline: that the teacher is just,
Physical qualities: physical attractiveness, pleasant voice, nice suit, youthfulness,
Teaching quality: good knowledge of the profession, helping the student, acting
in the interest of students, to be interesting and enthusiastic, to know how to
make the students interested, to teach clearly and to emphasize what is
important source: Ozegović,
, p.
.
In addition to students and their parents, teachers are the most important factors
of the educational process. We can rightfully say that the quality of future education
will depend on the teachers, their qualifications, commitment and motivation. Quality
teachers who strive to democratic communication in quality schools and the teaching
process are very important but motivated students who seek quality education are as
well. High-quality schools, quality teachers, motivated students create democratic
communication in the teaching process, and so better success in learning.
2. Research methodology
2.1 The aim research
Concerning this specific topic, the aim of research is to show if there is a significant,
statistical connection between interpersonal communication in teaching and students'
achievement. The other of this research is to determine whether is achievement
statistically better using democratic teaching model rather than autocratic one.
2.2 The main hypothesis of the research
Based on the defined problems, goals and objectives of our research, the main
hypothesis is: We assume that there is a statistically significant connection between
interpersonal communication in teaching and student success in learning, and that
students whose teachers mostly used the democratic model of communication in the
classroom achieve significantly better success in learning than those students whose
teachers use mainly the autocratic model of communication.
2.3 Respondents
The population from which a sample of respondents was selected, and the population
to which this study applies to, consisted of subject teachers and eighth-grade students
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
3
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
from primary schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Herzegovina-Neretva Canton). The
sample in this study had an element of deliberate, commemorative and simple
accidental. The research was conducted on a sample of 423 respondents of which 322
respondents of the representative sample are primary school students, while the other
101 were primary school teachers.
2.4 Instrument
After we created a methodological concept as the basis for an empirical investigation of
the problem, we have also made instruments of research. In order to achieve the set
goal and tasks, as research instruments, we used: Scale assessment of students and
teachers of the dominant model of communication used by teachers and students in the
teaching process. Scale assessment we used is the Likert scale in which the respondents
expressed strong degree of agreement or disagreement with the proposed claims, in
accordance with the proposed guidelines on your usual five-point scale: always, often,
sometimes, rarely, never. The survey was conducted during the following period:
March-June 2014 in four primary schools of Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
In accordance with the defined goal and tasks, with this study we wanted to
inquire whether there is a statistically significant connection between interpersonal
communication in teaching and student success, and whether students whose teachers
mostly used the democratic model of communication in teaching achieved statistically
significantly better school results than those students whose teachers use mainly the
autocratic model of communication.
3. Results and discussion
Guided by the idea related to our assumption, it seemed interesting to examine whether
there are significant differences in the assessment of the respondents on dominant
models of communication in the modern educational systems and in the traditional
teaching, and consequently we started calculating the value of the t-test. A closer look at
the frequent estimates of dominant model of communication in innovative systems and
in traditional teaching can be obtained by analyzing the results of the research related to
the degree of acceptance of certain claims, i.e. the degree of acceptance of some
indicators of democratic models in innovative teaching systems and indicators of
autocratic model of communication in traditional teaching.
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
4
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
Table 1: Indicators of acceptance of certain elements of the communication in the
modern / innovative systems
4.
5.
6.
d) suggest 2-3 methods of study and implement the one
that most students want
Teachers encourage students to ask a lot of questions
and give their opinion
Teachers communicate with students' parents only
when there is a problem
Teachers have the ability:
a) to build a good and pleasant relationship with
students
b) to motivate the students to learn
c) to encourage individual work and learning
d) to provide challenges to students
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
During the lesson in innovative systems the teacher
encourages students, and respects their different
opinions
Teachers in cooperation with the students provide an
environment in which students feel respected as
individuals
During the curricular and extracurricular activities,
teachers are rude, ill-disposed toward students and not
ready for their proposals
Teachers have the ability to adapt to students'
individual needs and abilities
During innovative teaching, there is a good and friendly
work atmosphere
The teacher does not commend students when the
student knows the answer
Never
(f i %)
b) set new problems and encourage students to solve
them
c) prepare tasks with different levels of difficulty
Rarely
(f i %)
3.
Sometimes
(f i %)
2.
Teachers in a clear and interesting way exhibit teaching
materials
Teachers use the modern equipment (projector,
Internet, prepared material for work)
When implementing the teaching content, teachers use:
a) new methods of study
Often
(f i %)
1.
M
Always
(f i %)
Claims related to the model of communication in
innovative systems
167
39,5
76
18,0
155
36,6
162
38,3
65
15,4
108
25,5
16
3,8
56
13,2
20
4,7
21
5,0
4,02
112
26,5
77
18,2
141
33,3
119
28,1
147
34,6
99
23,4
157
37,1
159
37,6
170
40,2
154
36,4
171
40,4
112
26,5
104
24,6
111
26,2
77
18,2
79
18,7
71
16,8
100
23,6
24
5,7
27
6,4
27
6,4
49
11,6
26
6,1
64
15,1
26
6,1
49
11,6
8
1,9
22
5,2
8
1,9
48
11,3
3,72
183
43,3
168
39,7
164
38,8
107
25,3
171
40,4
137
32,4
157
37,1
142
33,6
170
40,2
136
32,2
57
13,5
57
13,5
85
20,1
93
22,0
84
19,9
29
6,9
31
7,3
26
6,1
32
7,6
27
6,4
17
4,0
10
2,4
6
1,4
21
5,0
5
1,2
4,04
131
31,0
143
33,8
90
21,3
38
9,0
21
5,0
3,77
34
8,0
36
8,5
63
14,9
99
23,4
191
45,2
2,11
140
33,1
118
27,9
68
16,1
46
10,9
51
12,1
3,59
173
40,9
50
11,8
145
34,3
85
20,1
56
13,2
89
21,0
31
7,3
109
25,8
18
4,3
90
21,3
4,00
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
3,51
3,44
3,97
3,71
4,00
3,35
4,04
4,02
3,73
4,04
2,75
5
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
The presented results show that the respondents of the dominant model of
communication replied in the following statements:
•
That teachers in a clear and interesting way exhibit teaching materials 167 respondents
agree (39.5%).
•
That during the lesson in innovative systems the teacher encourages students, and
respects their different opinions 171 respondents agree (40.4%).
•
That during innovative teaching, there is a good and friendly work atmosphere173
respondents agree (40.9 %).
In addition, they frequently choose the following claims:
•
Teachers encourage students to ask a lot of questions and give their opinion.
•
Teachers have the ability to build a good and pleasant relationship with students.
•
Teachers have the ability to motivate students to learn.
•
Teachers have the ability to encourage individual work and learning.
A more precise insight into the results presented in Table 1 point to the
frequency of the assessment and the selection of statements that indicate the autocratic
model dominant in traditional teaching.
Table 2: Results of the assessment of the frequency of elements of the model of
communication in traditional teaching
3.
4.
5.
6.
b) encourages creativity - gives opportunity
7.
8.
9.
Teachers do not prepare for classes adequately. They
think they have it all in their head
The teacher's authoritative approach causes fear, unease
and uncertainty in students
Teachers in their work:
a) do not encourage student ideas
Never
(f i %)
The teacher scolds a student when the student does not
know the answer
Teachers do not like it when the students constantly
give their suggestions during the class
Teachers do not allow their students to suggest
anything for their work
Students have the opportunity to choose and use
different sources of information
During the class the teacher:
a) conducts – orders
Rarely
(f i %)
2.
Sometimes
(f i %)
Teachers exhibit teaching materials frontally
Often
(f i %)
1.
M
Always
(f i %)
Claims on the dominant model of communication in
traditional teaching
63
14,9
26
6,1
31
7,3
30
7,1
133
31,4
151
35,7
64
15,1
44
10,4
60
14,2
140
33,1
134
31,7
106
25,1
102
24,1
72
17,0
68
16,1
44
10,4
98
23,2
127
30,0
115
27,2
50
11,8
31
7,3
129
30,5
119
28,1
146
34,5
32
7,6
3,40
68
16,1
140
33,1
32
7,6
33
7,8
92
21,7
137
32,4
87
20,6
65
15,4
125
29,6
102
24,1
113
26,7
121
28,6
71
16,8
29
6,9
97
22,9
109
25,8
67
15,8
15
3,5
94
22,2
95
22,5
3,05
52
48
106
90
127
2,55
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
2,43
2,39
2,32
3,69
3,85
2,68
2,60
6
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
b) do not pay attention to students' opinions
10.
11.
12.
c) ask of the students to have to learn every word the
way they said it
Students have the opportunity to explain their ideas
The teacher should have a decisive role in the course of
teaching
The teacher is the main source of knowledge
12,3
37
8,7
53
12,5
160
37,8
134
31,7
124
29,3
11,3
57
13,5
54
12,8
145
34,3
140
33,1
136
32,2
25,1
105
24,8
72
17,0
68
16,1
101
23,9
104
24,6
21,3
86
20,3
87
20,6
26
6,1
34
8,0
35
8,3
30,0
138
32,6
157
37,1
24
5,7
14
3,3
24
5,7
2,45
2,43
3,92
3,82
3,71
The dominance of the autocratic model of communication in traditional teaching is
evident based on the presented claims:
The teacher should have a decisive role in the course of teaching 134 respondents agree
(31.7%), while 101 respondents (23.9%) believe that the teacher should only
occasionally play a decisive role in teaching.
With the claim that the teacher is the main source of knowledge 124 respondents
(29.3%) strongly agree, while 104 (33.1%) believe that still the teacher sometimes
is a source of knowledge.
That the teachers exhibit teaching materials frontally 63 respondents (14.9%) agree,
while 151 respondents (35.7%) believe that that is a common practice and 134
(31.7%) believe that the teachers only sometimes use frontal teaching.
The following claims were also frequent:
Teachers in their work do not encourage student ideas
Teachers in their work do not pay attention to students' opinions
Teachers in their work ask of the students to have to learn every word the way
they said it
As we can see from Table 2, the arithmetic mean on the Scale of assessments of
the respondents of the dominant democratic model of communication in the modern
educational system is higher for teachers (M = 63,346) as compared to students (M =
55,838). However, this difference is not statistically significant (t = -8,948, df = 221, p
<0.05).
So, teachers and students, on average, have similar assessments related to the
dominance of the democratic model of communication in the modern educational
system. A group of children on average achieves higher scores (M = 35,900) than groups
of teachers (M = 27.29), when it comes to the assessment of dominance of the autocratic
model of communication in the traditional teaching. However, here as well, this
difference is not statistically significant (t = 10,289, df = 421, p <0.05). In other words,
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
7
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
these two groups of respondents express fairly equal estimates related to the dominance
of the autocratic model of communication in traditional teaching.
Table 3: Results of the t-test for determining the possible differences in the assessment of
respondents (teachers and students) of the dominant democratic model of communication in
the modern educational systems and the dominant autocratic model of communication in the
traditional teaching
Variable
Respondent
N
M
SD
∆M
SE∆M
t
df
p
Assessment of the
Student
322
55,838
9,181
7,508
0,839
-8,948
228
.000
Teacher
101
63,346
6,683
Student
322
35,900
7,465
8,603
0,836
10,289
421
.000
Teacher
101
27,297
6,884
respondents of the dominant
democratic model of
communication in the modern
educational systems
Assessment of the
respondents of the dominant
autocratic model of
communication in the
traditional teaching
Legend:
∆M – arithmetic mean difference,
SE∆M – standard error of the difference,
t-the value of t statistics,
df – degrees of freedom, p –significance
Since the differences in the estimates of the respondents, i.e. students and teachers, did
not turn out to be statistically significant, but in order to get a more detailed insight into
the results of the distribution of the results of the assessment of the dominant model of
democratic education in innovative systems and the dominant autocratic model of
education in traditional systems, we have developed a degree of assessment of
dominance of these two models with the responses of respondents categorized in the
manner presented in Table no. 4.
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
8
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
Table 4: The connection of the assessment of the respondents of the dominant democratic
model of communication in the modern educational systems and the dominant autocratic
model of communication in the traditional teaching
The autocratic style in traditional teaching
not dominant
0
,0%
0
,0%
1
,2%
1
,2%
Not dominant
Dominant
Very dominant
Total
X2= 6,340; df=4;
The democratic style in innovative systems
C.Coeff=0,122;
dominant
0
,0%
62
14,7%
48
11,3%
110
26,0%
very dominant
3
,7%
205
48,5%
104
24,6%
312
73,8%
Total
3
,7%
267
63,1%
153
36,2%
423
100,0%
p=0,175
Thus, presented results strongly suggest that the highest percentage of respondents
largely opted for the dominance of the autocratic style in traditional teaching and of the
democratic style in innovative teaching. The values obtained X2 = 6.340 in the value of
the coefficient C = 0.122 which is not significant at any statistical level, point to the lack
of cohesion among the variables mentioned above, and on the basis of these research
results we reject our research hypothesis.
4. Conclusion
Estimates of the majority of our respondents indicate that teachers predominantly use
the democratic model of communication in the classroom. Respondents expressed their
views entirely agreeing with the statements that teachers always encourage, motivate
and reward students for their work, then that the willingness of teachers to help the
student affects the positive attitude in the teacher-student relationship, that the teachers
are always willing to help the students, and that the understanding and the respect for
the students' personalities and teachers' interesting exhibits are important elements to
creating a positive attitude in the teacher-student relationship, and that most teachers
are always nice to students. Since it is based on attitudes and personal assessment, this
research has the character of a snapshot of the awareness of respondents of different
characteristics within a certain time period and should be viewed as such.
References
1. Caspe, M. S. (2003). How teachers come to understand families. The School
Community Journal, 13(1), 115-131.
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
9
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
2. Delors, J. and others. (1998). Učenje: blago u nama. Zagreb: Educa.
3. Glasser, W. (1993). Nastavnik u kvalitetnoj školi. Zagreb: Educa.
4. Greene, B. (1996). Nove paradigme za stvaranje kvalitetnih škola. Zagreb: Alinea.
5. Von Hentig, H. (1997). Humana škola. Zagreb: Educa.
6. Ilić, M.
. Cilj, zadaci i sadržaji vaspitno-obrazovnog rada u uslovima savremenih
promjena. Banja Luka: Naša škola 1-2.
7. Ilić. M.
: Od tradicionalne do kvalitetne škole, Radovi, Banja Luka
8. Knapp, M. and Hall, J. (2010). Neverbalna komunikacija. Zagreb: Naklada Slap.
9. Krech, D. and Crutchfield, R. (1972). Pojedinac u društvu. Beograd: Zavod za
udžbenike.
10. Kyriacou, C. (2001). Temeljna nastavna umijeća. Zagreb: Educa.
11. Lunenburg, F.C. (2010). Communication: The Process, barriers and Improving
Effectiveness. Schooling, 1(1), Sam Houston State University.
12. Ožegović, D.
. Komunikacija u nastavi. Istočno Sarajevo: Zavod za udžbenike
i nastavna sredstva.
13. Reardon, K. (1998). Interpersonalna komunikacija. Zagreb: Alinea.
14. Salovey, P. and Sluyter, J.D. (1997). Emocionalni razvoj i emocionalna inteligencija.
15. Stevanović, M. and Ajanović, Dž.
. Školska pedagogija. Sarajevo: Prosvjetni
list.
16. Tubbs, S. (2013). Komunikacija. Beograd: Clio.
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
10
Semir Šejtanić, Mustafa Džafić
THE DOMINANT MODEL OF COMMUNICATION IN TRADITIONAL TEACHING AND
MODERN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS
Creative Commons licensing terms
Authors will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for membe rs of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Alternative Education
Studies shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflict of interests, copyright
violations and inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated on the research work. All the published works are meeting the
Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and noncommercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Alternative Education Studies - Volume 2 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
11
European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science
ISSN: 2501 - 1235
ISSN-L: 2501 - 1235
Available on-line at: www.oapub.org/edu
Volume 3 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
doi: 10.5281/zenodo.290301
EFFECT OF CLASS SIZE ON THE LEARNING OF MOTOR SKILL
AMONG SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN IFE
CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF OSUN STATE, NIGERIA
Adeyanju, S. A.1
Mamudu, M. M.2i
Danıa, E. T.2
1
Professor, Department of Physical and Health Education
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun, Nigeria
2
Department of Physical and Health Education
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun, Nigeria
Abstract:
The effect of class size on the learning of motor skill among selected secondary school
students of Ife Central Local Government of Area of Osun state, Nigeria was examined.
The study was experimental in nature and it involved pre-test and post-test using a
novel skill (push pass in hockey). Three secondary schools where the game of hockey
was neither taught nor played were purposively selected for the study. Participants
were selected using stratified random sampling method with sex as the stratum.
Participants for the study comprised 56 male and female students age 11-15 years that
were not familiar with the skill. Three classes were drawn from the three schools. A
small class size was drawn from School A with eight participants. In school B, a
medium class size of 16 participants was drawn. The large class size of 32 participants
was drawn from School C. Each of the classes had equal number of male and female
participants. Push pass in hockey was measured at pre-test and post-test. Skill training
took place after the pre-test measures. Mean and standard deviation were the
descriptive analysis while t-test was the inferential statistic used for the data. The
results of the analysis show that participants in medium class performed significantly
better than participants in the large (t= 2.81: 46 p˂0.05) and small (t= 3.44: 22 p< 0.05)
classes in the learning of motor skill. Females in medium class size also performed
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
© 2015 2017 Open Access Publishing Group
52
Adeyanju, S. A., Mamudu, M. M., & Danıa, E. T.
EFFECT OF CLASS SIZE ON THE LEARNING OF MOTOR SKILL AMONG SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS IN IFE CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF OSUN STATE, NIGERIA
significantly better than those in large class size (t= 4.13: 22 p<0.05) and those in small
class size (t= 4.15:10 p<0.05). Gender is a significant factor in such learning.
Keywords: class size, motor skill, motor skill learning
1. Introduction
Throughout life, a vast array of motor skills are learned and retained. While certain
skills such as walking and talking are primarily dependent upon maturation, others
such as playing the piano and swinging a squash racket are primarily learned in a
formal setting. Miguel & Machar (2009) defined Motor skill as an act or task that has a
goal to achieve and that requires voluntary body or limb movement to be properly
performed. Oxendine (1985) described motor skills as those behaviors that are
demonstrated through smooth, well controlled and coordinated muscular movement.
Oxendine divided motor skills into three broad categories according to the purpose and
manner for which they were learned. First are the skills that are developed early in life
and are primarily dependent on maturation. These include activities such as crawling
and walking. The second group of motor skills involves those that are essential for the
further development of educational objectives. The group includes communication
skills such as handwriting, reading and observation which are used as tools for more
advanced learning. The third category of skills includes those that are taught for their
own values, for benefits that are directly related to the activity. Generally, vocational
and recreational activities are in this group.
Motor learning can be described as a persistent change in movement behaviour
potentiality as a result of practice or experience (Oxendine, 1988). Only the reference to
movement behaviour distinguishes this from definition of learning in general. The
range of movement responses encompassed in motor learning varies widely. Schmidt
and Wrisberg (2008) also define motor learning as the changes associated with practice or
experience, in internal processes that determine a person’s capability for producing a motor
skill. These changes are relatively permanent, that is, stored in long-term memory, and
are associated with exercise or repetition of motor skills.
Learning of motor skills could be on a one-on-one basis, that is between the
teacher and a learner or it could be between the teacher and a group of learners. Thus,
class size refers to the actual number of pupils taught by a teacher at a particular time
(Ehrenberg, Brewer, Gamoran & Willians, 2001). Ehrenberg and his colleagues (2001)
also suggested that the number of students in a class has the potential to affect how
much is learned in a number of different ways. For example, it could affect how
European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science - Volume 3 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
53
Adeyanju, S. A., Mamudu, M. M., & Danıa, E. T.
EFFECT OF CLASS SIZE ON THE LEARNING OF MOTOR SKILL AMONG SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS IN IFE CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF OSUN STATE, NIGERIA
students interact with one another
the level of social engagement. This may result, for
example, in more or less noise and disruptive behavior, which in turn affect the kind of
activities the teacher is able to promote. It could affect how much time the teacher is
able to focus on individual students and their specific needs rather than on the group as
a whole. Jack & Peter (1997) opined that it is easier to focus on one individual in a
smaller group. The smaller the class size, the more likely individual attention can be
given, and an increase in the class size has a negative effect on student achievement.
This study was carried out to determine the effect which various class sizes have
on the learning of motor skills and the relative effect of class size on gender.
2. Methodology
A pretest
posttest design was used for the study. Three Secondary schools were
purposively selected. The schools were those where the game of Hockey was not taught
or played. Participants for the study comprised 56 male and female students age 11
15
years. They were selected using stratified random sampling method with sex as the
stratum. Three class sizes were used in this study; they are Small Class Size (SCS),
Medium Class Size (MCS) and Large Class Size (LCS). Each class consisted of equal
number of male and female participants randomly selected. A SCS was drawn from
school A. where eight participants were in the class. In school B, a MCS of 16
participants was drawn. The LCS of 32 participants was drawn in school C.
A novel motor skill which is the Push Pass in field hockey was the skill of
interest in this study. A pre-test measurement of the skill was carried out on
participants in the three different class sizes after which they were taught and trained in
the same skill. The post-test was measured after training, all testing and training for the
classes were done in a single day for each group.
2.1 Procedure
2.1.1 The pre-test
For the pre-test, participants were shown how to hold the hockey stick and instructed to
execute a push pass to a target 4ft wide and at a distance of six meters. This was to test
and measure the participants’ ability to execute the skill before being taught. Three
trials were allowed for each participant.
European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science - Volume 3 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
54
Adeyanju, S. A., Mamudu, M. M., & Danıa, E. T.
EFFECT OF CLASS SIZE ON THE LEARNING OF MOTOR SKILL AMONG SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS IN IFE CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF OSUN STATE, NIGERIA
2.1.2 The Training
After the pre-test, each of the classes was taught the skill for 25 minutes using
Descriptive and Demonstration methods, and a period of 10 minutes was allowed for
each participant to practice the skill taught. Participants were allowed to make several
execution of push pass to the target during practice. The researcher made corrections
and emphasized necessary coaching points during practice session.
2.1.3 The post-test
The post-test was carried out after the skill was taught on the same day. This was done
to measure the students learning of the skill. The students were allowed three attempts
to execute a push pass to the same target that was used in the pre-test.
2.3 Measurement of Performance
Performance of the participants in the push pass skill on target was carried out at the
pre-test and post-test stages. The performance score schedule used is listed as follows;
Ball on target directed at either the left or right angle of the target…...….
points
Ball on target directed to centre of the target…..………………………….…5 points
Ball outside the target…………………………………………………….….…. point
2.4. Data Analysis
Mean and standard deviation were the descriptive analysis used for the data. For
inferential statistics, the t-test analysis using the mean different score ( x d) between the
pre-test and post-test was used to determine if there are significant differences in the
performances based on class sizes and gender.
3. Results
The summary of the comparison of performance between the three different class sizes
and gender using the t-test analysis is presented Tables 1, 2 and 3.
Table 1: t-test analysis of x d score of male and female participants performances
within the classes
Class Size
Male
xd
Female
SD
xd
SD
t-value
Calc.
Crit.
df
Probability
Level
LCS
4.60
1.60
2.94
1.55
2.05
2.02
0.05
31
MCS
5.25
1.87
6.04
1.35
0.69
2.13
0.05
15
SCS
2.83
1.05
3.58
1.61
0.53
2.37
0.05
7
European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science - Volume 3 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
55
Adeyanju, S. A., Mamudu, M. M., & Danıa, E. T.
EFFECT OF CLASS SIZE ON THE LEARNING OF MOTOR SKILL AMONG SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS IN IFE CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF OSUN STATE, NIGERIA
In Table 1, it is observed that the x d score of male and female participants’
performances were compared in their various classes and there is a significant
difference in the performances of male and female participants in the LCS. This
indicates that the performance of male and female participants in the LCS was
significantly different with the male participants performing better. There were
however no significant differences between male and female participants in the MCS
and SCS. This indicates that the performance of male and female participants within the
MCS and SCS are similar.
Table 2 presents the t-test of difference scores for male and female participants
between class sizes and gender.
Table 2: t-test analysis of x d score of male and female participants performances
between the different class sizes
Class Size
Large
Medium
xd
SD
xd
LCS & MCS
4.60
1.60
5.25
LCS & SCS
4.60
1.60
SD
Small
xd
SD
t-value
Probability level
df
Calc.
Crit.
0.59
2.07
0.05
22
Male
MCS & SCS
1.87
5.25
1.87
6.04
1.35
2.84
1.05
0.49
2.18
0.05
18
2.84
1.05
2.19
2.32
0.05
10
4.13
2.07
0.05
22
Female
LCS & MCS
2.94
1.55
LCS & SCS
2.94
1.55
MCS & SCS
6.04
1.35
5.38
1.61
0.62
2.10
0.05
18
5.38
1.61
4.15
2.23
0.05
10
In Table 2, it is observed that the x d score of male and female participants’
performances between the different class sizes were compared. There is no significant
difference in the comparison of performances of the male participants between all the
class sizes. This also indicates that the performances of the male participants between
the different class sizes are not statistically significant. However, in the comparison of
the performances of the female participants between the various class sizes, only the
comparison of the performances of the female participants in LCS and SCS was not
statistically different. There was a significant difference in the comparison of the female
participants’ performances between LCS and MCS, and MCS and SCS, with the female
participants in the MCS performing better than those in both LCS and SCS.
Table 3 presents the t-test analysis of the difference score performance of the
three class sizes.
European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science - Volume 3 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
56
Adeyanju, S. A., Mamudu, M. M., & Danıa, E. T.
EFFECT OF CLASS SIZE ON THE LEARNING OF MOTOR SKILL AMONG SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS IN IFE CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF OSUN STATE, NIGERIA
Table 3: t-test analysis of x d score performance of the three class sizes
Class Size
Large
Medium
xd
SD
xd
SD
LCS & MCS
3.77
1.49
5.65
1.66
LCS & SCS
3.77
1.49
MCS & SCS
5.65
1.66
t-value
Small
xd
SD
Calc.
Probability Level
df
Crit.
2.81
2.00
0.05
46
3.21
1.41
0.64
2.02
0.05
38
3.21
1.41
3.44
2.07
0.05
22
In Table 3, all the various class performances were compared. The comparison of the
LCS and SCS was not significantly different. This indicates that the performances of the
participants in the LCS and SCS are not statistically significant. This however is not the
case with the comparison of participants’ performances in the LCS and MCS and in the
MCS and SCS. There were significant differences in the comparison with the MCS
performing better than the LCS and SCS.
4. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of class size on the learning of
motor skill. Push pass in hockey was used for the study as a novel skill to participants
in three different class sizes. It was hypothesized the there is no significance in the
learning of motor skill based on class size and gender.
Results from the study show that participants in medium class performed better
than participants in both large and small classes. This is in contrast to Bain and Achilles
(1986) study. They reported that students in smaller classes performed better than
students in larger classes. Bain and Achilles (1986) made their report on the Project
Prime Time study in Indiana, U.S.A. Also, Alex, Philip, & John, (2000) reported that the
Wisconsin, SAGE program (1999) concluded that the smaller the class size, the better
the students’ performance. Frederick (1995) also reported on the Tennessee study of
class size conducted in 1985-1989 (STAR) that the minority group gained more than
others when they are in small size classes.
Results from this study shows that the medium class performed better than the
large and small classes. One would have expected the small class to perform better but
this was not the case. The observed situation may be because the participants in the
small class sizes had too much time for themselves and that may have resulted in
distractions while participants in the medium class had just enough time for learning.
Participants in the Small class size were rather more reserved to themselves than
participants in the Medium class size.
European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science - Volume 3 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
57
Adeyanju, S. A., Mamudu, M. M., & Danıa, E. T.
EFFECT OF CLASS SIZE ON THE LEARNING OF MOTOR SKILL AMONG SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS IN IFE CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF OSUN STATE, NIGERIA
In the Wisconsin study, SAGE (1999) made use of a small class size 15 students to
one teacher. The medium class of this study had a class size of 16 students to one
teacher. This means that class smaller than this range may be affected by some other
factors which are not within the scope of this study. Factors such as learner’s
socioeconomic background, hereditary, learning environments, climate etc. may have
influence on learning in small class settings.
Regarding the issue of gender, there was a significant difference in the
performances of male and female participants in the LCS. In Table 1, the male and
female participant performances were compared and in the LCS, there was a significant
difference in their performance with the male participants performing better than the
female participants. This supports the work of Venetsanou and Kambas (2007). They
stated that gender has a significant effect on learning. However, Venetsanou and
Kambas (2007) carried out their study on balance skill in preschool age children. This
may have accounted for their result.
From this study, it could be seen that class size seems to be a significant factor
that can affect the learning of motor skill such as push pass in hockey. However,
learning is a multi-dimensional structure and as such, cannot be affected by only class
size. And there is a significant effect of gender in the learning of push pass in hockey as
a motor skill.
5. Conclusion
Within the scope of this study, it was concluded that the medium class size is more
amenable to the learning of motor skill and that gender is a significant factor in such
learning.
6. Recommendation
Based on the findings of this research, it will be recommended that Schools should
adopt a class size of between 15-18 students to one teacher in motor skill classes as
learning is more efficient at this class size
References
1. Achilles, C. M, Nye, B. A, Zaharias J. B, & Fulton B. D. (1993). The Lasting
Benefits Study (LBS) in grades 4 and 5 (1990 1991): A legacy from Tennessee’s
European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science - Volume 3 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
58
Adeyanju, S. A., Mamudu, M. M., & Danıa, E. T.
EFFECT OF CLASS SIZE ON THE LEARNING OF MOTOR SKILL AMONG SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS IN IFE CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF OSUN STATE, NIGERIA
four-year (K 3) class-size study (1985 1989), Project STAR. Paper presented at
the North Carolina Association for Research in Education. Greensboro, North
Carolina, January 14, 1993
2. “lex M, Philip S, & John Z,
,
999-2000 Results of the Student
Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) Program Evaluation , Center for
Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation, University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee.
3. Bain H. P, & Achilles, C. M. (1986). Interesting developments in class size. Phi
Delta Kappan (1986) 67:662 65.
4. Ehrenberg R. G, Brewer D. J, Gamoran A, & Williams J. D. (2001).Class size and
Students Achievement. Journal of the American Psychological Society, Vol. 2, No. 1.
Pp.1-35
5. Frederick M (1995), The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School
Grades. Critical Issues for Children And Youths Vol. 5, No. 2
Summer/Fall 1995.
6. Jack K, & Peter J. P (2009), The Effect of Class Size on Student Performance and
Retention. Binghamton University Office of Budget & Institutional Research
Binghamton University PO Box 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000
7. Miguel Crespo & Machar Reid (2009) Motor Skill Learning For Advanced
Coaching
Introduction. ITF Coaches Education Programme; Coaching High
Performance Players Course Coach Education Series.
8. Oxendine J. B. (1984). Motor Skill. Psychology of Motor Learning.2nd ed. P.14.
Prentice Hall Inc. Eaglewood Cliff, New Jersey, U.S.A
9. Schmidt RA, Wrisberg CA (2008). Motor Learning and Performance: A Situationbased Learning Approach (4th ed.) Champaign, IL
10. Venetsanou, F (2007). A study on the motor development of preschool aged
children in Peloponnesus territory, Greece (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Department of Physical Education and Sport
Sciences, Democritus University,
Greece.
11. Venetsanou F., Kambas A, Aggeloussis N, Serbezis V, & Taxildaris K. (2007): Use
of the Bruininks Osetetsky Test of Motor Proficiency for identifying children
with motor impairment. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49, 11,
846-848.
European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science - Volume 3 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
59
Adeyanju, S. A., Mamudu, M. M., & Danıa, E. T.
EFFECT OF CLASS SIZE ON THE LEARNING OF MOTOR SKILL AMONG SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS IN IFE CENTRAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF OSUN STATE, NIGERIA
Creative Commons licensing terms
Authors will retain the copyright of their published articles agreeing that a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) terms
will be applied to their work. Under the terms of this license, no permission is required from the author(s) or publisher for members of the community
to copy, distribute, transmit or adapt the article content, providing a proper, prominent and unambiguous attribution to the authors in a manner that
makes clear that the materials are being reused under permission of a Creative Commons License. Views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this
research article are views, opinions and conclusions of the author(s). Open Access Publishing Group and European Journal of Physical Education and
Sport Science shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability caused in relation to/arising out of conflict of interests, copyright
violations and inappropriate or inaccurate use of any kind content related or integrated on the research work. All the published works are meeting the
Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and noncommercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science - Volume 3 │ Issue 1 │ 2017
60
Open Access Publishing Group