Comparison of Two Different Training Methods on Table Tennis Skill

INTRODUCTION

Coaching is a form of development in which a person called a coach supports a learner or client in achieving a specific personal or professional goal by providing training and guidance.1 Physical educators and coaches all over the world are facing greatest challenge in handling problems in scientific way i.e., to provide sportsman proper and progressive guidelines based on scientific approach which leads to desired results. Training of any athlete for any game is carried out on the basis of certain principles due to new findings and research. These principle are modified or technique may be applied today but get respected tomorrow. Training is tremendously important and should form an important part of all elite athlete‟s daily routines. Through training we can gradually build up strength and endurance, improve skill levels and build motivation, ambition and confidence. It also allows athletes to gain more knowledge of their sport as well as empowering them to learn about the significance of having a healthy mind and body. In relations of physical special effects of training, regular exercise increases muscle tone, enables good circulation, improves strength, agility and flexibility and improves the rate of waste product disposal. Consistent training also speeds up recovery time succeeding physical exercise; this enables the body to cope with

With sport-specific goals sport skills are voluntary, coordinated tasks. Learning of basic movement skills is the first step toward learning sport-specific skills for athletic performance. Understanding of these basic movements helps the coaches make good training decisions for expertise as well as for fitness and strength and conditioning.4

For the purpose of this study 30 male students who had not played table tennis were selected. The subject of this study were residing in the university campus and therefore they had similar routine of work, diet ,rest, sleep etc. all of them participated in the regular activity classes in accordance with the requirement of the university curriculum. the study. All the subjects were divided into two groups, each consisting of 15 boy‟s assigned two training methods viz. robot training method, traditional training method. The selected skill namely alternate push was taught to both the group in their respected methods of teaching for forty five minutes a day for six week. Robot training method include a machine named robo pong which produces the balls at a certain speed, frequency and place set by the tester. For the training robo was set in such a manner that it could produce the balls for the purpose the balls for the purpose of alternate push. Machine produces each ball within two seconds so that to play the ball could be easy for a player who is novice in the game of table tennis. Traditional training method include a tester who is expert on the game of table tennis. The tester feeds the balls and makes the subjects able to play alternate push. He continuously feeds the balls by keeping more balls in the free hand.

The “alternate push” performance on the basis of “skill test” constructed by Dr. Pushpendra Purashwani was the only criterion measure used for this study. All the subjects were assembled in the indoor table tennis hall of Lakshmibai National Institute of physical Education, Gwalior. And explained the purpose of the study so that they could form a mental picture of the various tasks, they were going to do. In order to measure the „alternate push‟ performance the data was collected on the basis of „post-test‟.

In order to compare the means of robot training group and traditional training group Independent„t‟ test was selected. The selected level of significance chosen was 0.05.

RESULTS:

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) of traditional group and robo group. The mean and standard deviation for traditional group is 15.47±2.349 and for robo group is 19.37±1.894. One of the conditions for using the two sample t-ratio for unrelated groups is that the variance of the two groups must be equal. To test the equality of variances, Levene‟s test was used. In Table- 2, f-value is .377 which is insignificant as the p-value is .544 which is more than .05. Thus the null hypothesis of equality of variance may be accepted, and it is concluded that the variances of the two groups are equal. It can be seen from table 2 that the value of t-statistics is 5.006. This t-value is significant as its p-value is .000 which is less than .05. Thus, the null hypothesis of equality of two groups mean is rejected and it may be concluded that the mean of traditional group is less than the robo group.

Analysis of data revealed that robo group is better than traditional group after administrating treatment for duration of six weeks. The result showed a significant difference between robot training group and traditional training group because robot continuously produces the ball at desired speed at desired place with desired frequency till the subject‟s desires while in traditional training method the tester is not able to provide the balls with the same speed at same place for long time. Hence, as the subjects got comparatively more practice while learning with robot machine than that of traditional method.

1. Richard, Block R. (1977). The use of individual materials and self-management training techniques in developing competency in competitive gymnastics:

2. Merrifield, Mary V. (1977). A comparative study of two methods of teaching beginning swimming: completed research in health, physical education and recreation 19, p. 117. 3. Chertok, Herry L. (1977). A comparison of two methods of teaching ball handling skills to third grade students: completed research in health, physical education and recreation 19, p. 133 4. Reams, David N. (1977). A comparison of the effectiveness of two methods of teaching selected sports activities to third and sixth grade children: completed research in health, physical education and recreation 19, p. 128 5. Singh, H. (1982). The sports performance and its structure: SNIPES Journal 5, p. 3. 6. Fath, Judish A. (1969) A study of the effects of two different methods of teaching in gymnastics: completed research in health, physical education and recreation 11, p. 159.

PhD Scholar, DUDPESS, Delhi University, LNIPE, Gwalior