Abstract
Purpose: The lack of evidence on the effectiveness of blended-based massed and distributed training in volleyball resulting a gap, which became a focus in this study. This study aims to identify the effects of blended-based massed and distributed training on changes in student-athlete volleyball skills through mixed research methods.
Material and methods. This study applied mixed research methods and involved 60 female athletes who were active in volleyball from the Muhammadiyah University of Sukabumi (Indonesia). Participants were randomly allocated to the massed exercise, distributed exercise and control group. Quantitative instruments involved volleyball skill tests and qualitative instruments involved in-depth interviews. Quantitative data analysis included normality test, mean, standard deviation and ANOVA to assess differences of volleyball skills between massed, distributed and control groups. The size of effect in these three groups on volleyball skills was analyzed through the Cohen d. While qualitative data analysis was conducted through thematic analysis.
Results. This quantitative research found several results. First, there was no difference in volleyball skill scores between blended based massed and distributed training group and controls group before the experiment (p>0.05). Second, there was a difference in values between the blended-based massed and distributed group as well as control group after the experiment (p<0.05). Third, the effect size test showed that the blended-based massed and distributed groups have a moderate effect while the control group has a small effect on volleyball skills. While, in qualitative research agreed that blended-based massed and distributed training had advantages, weaknesss and impacts on volleyball skills.
Conclusions. This study concluded that this mixed research method was proven that blended based massed and distributed training have a positive effect for student athletes to learn every movement in volleyball skills.
Publisher
Independent publisher Zhanneta Kozina
Reference34 articles.
1. Østerlie O, Sargent J, Killian C. Editorial: Digital technology in physical education — Pedagogical approaches. Front Educ. 2022;7(November):1–3.
2. Killian CM, Espinoza SM, Webster CA, Long B, Urtel M, Mays Woods A, et al. Flipping the Script: An Initial Exploration of Flipped Learning as an Enhanced Alternative to Traditional Physical Education Lessons. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(22):2–14.
3. Roure C, Méard J, Lentillon-Kaestner V, Flamme X, Devillers Y, Dupont JP. The effects of video feedback on students’ situational interest in gymnastics. Technol Pedagog Educ. 2019;28(5):563–74.
4. Wallace J, Scanlon D, Calderón A. Digital technology and teacher digital competency in physical education: a holistic view of teacher and student perspectives. Curric Stud Heal Phys Educ. 2022;0(0):1–17.
5. Jastrow F, Greve S, Thumel M, Diekhoff H, Süßenbach J. Digital technology in physical education: a systematic review of research from 2009 to 2020. Ger J Exerc Sport Res. 2022;52(4):504–28.