DR. SANMUGANATHAN
PENANG, MALAYSIA.




Diploma in Physical and Health Education
B.A (Hons) History and Political Science
MA.ED & PhD in Physical Education and
Sports
I.A.A.F Level II coach
The Effects of Training Programmes using Tactical
Model with Different Teaching Styles on Students
with Varying Hockey Skills
Games are an important component in the Physical
Education curriculum and international sports
Students with different skill levels have the right to play
and upgrade their games performance
Games performance is based on ball control, speed and
accuracy executing skills, decision making and games
knowledge
Teaching styles, Learning and Training methods are
important to upgrade games performance
Background of study




TGFU model proven to be effective in decision making,
knowledge components. Not much improvement shown in
skill execution during game play
Spectrum of Mosston & Ashworth Teaching styles (B,E & H)
effective in sports especially in skill execution, but no research
had been done on ball control, decision making and knowledge
components of the game.
No research had been done to incorporate TGFU model with
Teaching Styles as a form of training programmes for students
in hockey.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness
and sustainabilities of SBT, SET & SHT on boys with different
skill levels in speed and accuracy, declarative and procedural
knowledge as well as ball control, decision making, skills
execution in 3-vs-3 game situation
Research Methodology








Balanced factorial design with Repeated Measures
Samples (225 boys, 12-13 year-old)
Pretest performance on speed and accuracy were used to
distribute the boys into skill levels (HSB, MSB, LSB)
Henry Freidel Field Hockey Test (H.F.F.H.T)
Hockey Knowledge Test : 30 multiple choice questions (15
declarative and 15 procedural knowledge)
Game Play Observational Instrument were used to measure
ball control, decision making and skill execution in 3 versus 3
game situation
MANCOVA, ANCOVA (to determine the effectiveness of the
three training prog using posttest I)
Two-ways Repeated Measures of ANOVA (to determine the
sustainabilities of training programmes using posttests I-III)
Training Programmes
Style B (practice)
-Teacher prepares the training
lessons and students practice it
when they are ready
Style E (inclusion)
-Teacher prepares training
lessons in 3 categories
(high, medium and low
difficulties)
- Give freedom to students
to choose the training lesson
Style H (Divergent production)
-Teacher prepares training
lessons based on tactical topic
and students solve the tactical
problem in game situation
TGFU MODEL
-Scoring strategy
-Defending strategy
-Restarting play strategy
6 steps
-Game
-Game appreciation
-Tactical awareness
-Making decision
-Skill execution
-Performance
Activities
-Warm up
-Analyzing tactical topic
-Games situation I
-Games Situation II
+ Skill drills
-Feedback & Limbering
down.
Training Schedule for SBT, SET and
SHT Training Programmes
Period
Tactical
Conditioning
Technique
a.
b.
1st wk
2nd -7th wk
(6 weeks of
Intervention)
Intensity
Volume
Pretest
Game situation
-Scoring
strategy
-Defending
strategy
-Restarting play
strategy
Game situation
-general
endurance
-agility
-strength
-speed
Skill drills
-Passing
-Dribbling
-Tackling
-Scoring
-Penalty corners
Wk 1 and 2
a.
55-70%
b.
70-90%
Wk 3 and 4
a.
Increase 70%
b.
Reduce 55%
Wk 5 and 6
a.
Increase 80%
b.
Reduce 55%
8th wk
Posttest I
12th wk
16th wk
Posttest II
Posttest III
Results
Effectiveness (Posttest I results)
Skill levels/Groups
Sp
Ac
Dec
Pro
B.C
D.M
S.E
HSB
No Dif
HSB
SET
SET
SHT
SBT
SHT
SHT
SBT
Sp
Ac
Dec
Pro
BC
DM, SE
Sustainabilities (Posttests I-III)
Speed: Huynh-Felt, p=.001, df(2, 148), partial eta 2 .266. observed power
1.00 (SET sustain from posttest I-II.)
Accuracy: Huynh-Felt, p=.031, df(2, 148), partial eta 2 .048. observed power
.640 (SHT sustain from posttest I-II.)
Declarative: Huynh-Felt, p=.010, df(2, 148), partial eta 2 .061. observed
power .788 (SBT sustain from posttest I-III & SHT sustain posttest I, III
Procedural: Huynh-Felt, p=.105, df(2, 148), partial eta 2 .030. observed
power .449 (SHT sustain from posttest I-III
Ball control: Huynh-Felt, p=.001, df(2, 70), partial eta 2 .288. observed
power .988 (No programme sustain from posttest I-III)
Decision making: Huynh-Felt, p=.001, df(2, 70), partial eta 2 .463. observed
power .100 (SET sustain from posttest I and III)
Skill execution: Huynh-Felt, p=.002, df(2, 70), partial eta 2 .063. observed
power .461 (SET sustain from posttest I - II)
Discussion and Conclusions
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
SET suitable as short and long term training prog for speed but also
as short term for accuracy.
SET suitable as long term training prog for decision making and skill
execution
SHT suitable as short term training prog for ball control
SHT suitable as long term training prog for declarative & procedural
knowledge
SBT suitable as short term training prog for skill execution and long
term declarative knowledge
Players need continuous training prog to improve and sustain game
performance
Future studies could use agility test to select samples or use any
other different teaching styles to incorporate with TGFU model
THANK YOU