View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Effectiveness of Content Knowledge Instruction in Tennis and Badminton in Physical Education Teacher Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Effectiveness of Content Knowledge Instruction in Tennis and Badminton in Physical Education Teacher Education
Language: English
Authors: Won Seok Chey (ORCID 0000-0003-3437-5276), Phillip Ward (ORCID 0000-0002-7447-3594), Leslie Dillon (ORCID 0009-0005-0166-1024), Rio Watanabe (ORCID 0000-0001-9878-5843), Sam Meyerhoff, Fabián Arroyo-Rojas (ORCID 0000-0002-3972-6234)
Source: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2025 44(2):261-271.
Availability: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Physical Education Teachers, Teacher Education Programs, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Racquet Sports, Knowledge Level, Experience, Preservice Teachers, Knowledge Base for Teaching, Program Effectiveness
DOI: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0302
ISSN: 0273-5024
1543-2769
Abstract: Purpose: Our research examined the effects of a content course in a physical education teacher education program. Methods: Ten participants were recruited from a physical education teacher education content course to examine participants' common content knowledge (CCK) and specialized content knowledge (SCK) in tennis and badminton. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to investigate (a) participants' pre-post gains in CCK and SCK, (b) the relationship between participants' playing and teaching experience with CCK and SCK, and (c) the relationship among the dependent variables in both pretest and posttest. Results: Participants' content knowledge variables increased significantly. Furthermore, the study revealed inconsistent relationships between participants' self-reported playing, teaching, and coaching experiences with their CCK and SCK scores at the pretest. We found inconsistent relationships between CCK and SCK among pre- and posttests. Discussion/Conclusion: The primary finding is that preservice teachers can improve substantively their content knowledge through well-designed content courses, but in some domains, there is more work to do.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1468748
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFtN1MWGsEoPJ5y4PGrxpK_AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFAcNx5GJaKIMaQq6gIBEICBm6ax28DKAKMDrwSQnznsyyX16Q7C-F4nxOkl_bNDevoL7AKjnz0CmGquR1Ep1GJppmcz_v_mXR6prMSu2ODf3T1Go59MRoPZR4wHFO9QokaAJBKLEp5mZnrMjneGIQeeum_8nglZ3zRHQc-REM82Iq0IHm0b5DGVTPOM6T6Yd0xRjjp7e8TCZQkjBBAhIApy1PT8_ic-K2zjB_hW
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183920127;0do01apr.25;2025Mar24.06:17;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183920127-1">The Effectiveness of Content Knowledge Instruction in Tennis and Badminton in Physical Education Teacher Education </title> <p>Purpose: Our research examined the effects of a content course in a physical education teacher education program. Methods: Ten participants were recruited from a physical education teacher education content course to examine participants' common content knowledge (CCK) and specialized content knowledge (SCK) in tennis and badminton. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to investigate (a) participants' pre–post gains in CCK and SCK, (b) the relationship between participants' playing and teaching experience with CCK and SCK, and (c) the relationship among the dependent variables in both pretest and posttest. Results: Participants' content knowledge variables increased significantly. Furthermore, the study revealed inconsistent relationships between participants' self-reported playing, teaching, and coaching experiences with their CCK and SCK scores at the pretest. We found inconsistent relationships between CCK and SCK among pre- and posttests. Discussion/Conclusion: The primary finding is that preservice teachers can improve substantively their content knowledge through well-designed content courses, but in some domains, there is more work to do.</p> <p>Keywords: evidence-based practice; teacher training; teaching-learning process; pedagogy</p> <p>It is now well documented that preservice teachers (PSTs) enter physical education teacher education (PETE) programs with limited knowledge of etiquette, techniques, and the tactics, and safety issues of various movement activities ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref2">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>]). This knowledge is called common content knowledge or CCK ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref9">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref10">27</reflink>]), and it has been typically measured using reliable and valid psychometric tests ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]). The scores of PST's movements CCK measured at entry to PETE programs range from 40% to 70% ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref12">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]). This low level of knowledge calls into question assumptions about the readiness of our PSTs who enter PETE programs in terms of what CCK they have acquired from their PK–12 schooling, extracurricular activities, and out-of-school activities (e.g., club sport and recreation leagues). It also provides a sharp focus on the role of PETE programs in educating them in the CCK they need to teach in PK–12 settings.</p> <p>It is also well documented that PSTs enter PETE programs with very limited understanding relating to the teaching of the content of PK–12 physical education ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref15">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref18">29</reflink>]). Teaching, not in the strict pedagogical sense, but in terms of (a) how to represent content to students, (b) knowing the instructional tasks that could be used to teach the content, and (c) knowing the errors that students, might make in performing instructional tasks ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref19">28</reflink>]). This knowledge is called specialized content knowledge or SCK, and it typically would not be expected that PSTs would have acquired this knowledge from performing in their PK–12 schooling, extracurricular activities, and out-of-school activities ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref21">27</reflink>]). However, they might have acquired some SCK if they had coached ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref22">27</reflink>]). Measurement of SCK has focused on categorizing instructional tasks using Rink's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>]) informing (i.e., new task), extending tasks (i.e., tasks that make the performance more complex or difficult), refining tasks (i.e., tasks that improve the technical or tactical performance of the task), and application tasks (e.g., tasks that assess or involve gameplay). Studies have validated instructional tasks using concurrent validity, demonstrating that when asked to design instruction, teachers develop their instruction in incremental and progressive ways represented by developing instruction beyond an informing task ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref24">30</reflink>]). This finding is a measure of the way teachers plan for instruction and provides an indication of what they know about the content they are teaching to students. Studies measuring PSTs entering PETE programs show that PSTs have little understanding of SCK ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref26">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref27">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref31">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>While it is clear that we know that the CCK and SCK entry levels of PSTs are low, we know very little about how well PETE programs improve their knowledge as they progress through their degree programs. What we do know from a few studies is that unless CCK and SCK are explicitly taught, PSTs do not improve very much in either domain ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref32">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref33">26</reflink>]) and that there is a focus on performing content rather than the teaching of CCK and SCK as the dominant model in PETE ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref34">16</reflink>]). There are, however, a number of recent studies that have shown whether CCK and SCK are taught, and PSTs can improve their knowledge of CCK and SCK ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref35">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref39">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>The pedagogies used in these studies to improve CCK and SCK include group work in problem solving, frequent assessment of CCK, the use of content maps, embedding the learning in particular models such as play practice ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref40">17</reflink>]), and Sport Education ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref41">22</reflink>]), using video to represent problems that need to be discriminated by observers and providing mature error correction ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref42">4</reflink>]), peer teaching focusing in instructional tasks development, and gameplay ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref43">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref46">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref48">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref49">31</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref50">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The importance of content knowledge is clear, "Teachers cannot help children learn things they themselves do not understand" ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref51">2</reflink>], p. 5). Given the evidence that PSTs enter teacher education programs with low levels of CCK and SCK and indications that they graduate with poor knowledge in these domains ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref52">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref53">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref54">31</reflink>]), this study investigates the effects of content knowledge training in two content areas, tennis, and badminton which are frequently taught in K–12 settings ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref55">15</reflink>]) and were a part of the PETE curriculum in this university. In this study, we investigated PST knowledge of safety issues, etiquette, techniques, and tactics of tennis and badminton CCK–movement (CCK-M), PST performance of CCK–performance (CCK-P) in each sport, PST knowledge of content development (SCK-CD), and their knowledge of error analysis (SCK-EA), which involves the ability to detect common errors and correct them. In addition, while previous studies have focused only on detecting technique and tactical errors, this study added rule and etiquette errors, and documented participants' responses to the errors to address the existing gaps in the SCK-EA.</p> <p>Our research questions are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> a. What are the pre–post changes in participants' CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA scores in tennis and badminton?</item> <p></p> <item> b. What are the relationships between participants' playing and teaching experience with CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA pretest scores in tennis and badminton?</item> <p></p> <item> c. What are the relationships among CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA pretest scores in tennis and badminton?</item> <p></p> <item> d. What are the relationships among CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA posttest scores in tennis and badminton?</item> </ulist> <p>Based on previous research ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref57">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref58">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref59">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref60">29</reflink>]), we hypothesized that there would be pretest scores would be low on all variables, that pre–post scores would improve in CCK and SCK-P and SCK-CD. Because of the lack of previous studies investigating SCK-EA, we did not have a hypothesis and instead treated this as an inductive outcome.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-2">Methods</hd> <p>The study was conducted in a PETE program at a midwestern university. Approval to conduct this research was obtained from the Institutional Review Board at the second author's university. All participants provided informed consent.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-3">Participants</hd> <p>Twelve students enrolled in a PETE racket sports course that taught tennis and badminton, and 10 of those students provided consent to participate in this study. A demographic questionnaire was administered to participants prior to the pretest. Among the 10 participants, three were juniors (30%) and seven were seniors (70%). A majority of the participants were male (80%). Eight participants self-identified as White and non-Hispanic, one as Asian or Pacific Islander, and one as African American/Black and non-Hispanic. Three participants reported sporting experience in tennis of 6, 36, and 36 months each. None of the participants reported sporting experience in badminton. All participants reported that they had no prior teaching or coaching experience in tennis or badminton, and none had previously taken a tennis or badminton course in the university PETE program.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-4">The PETE Content Course</hd> <p>The course was taught by the first author, a South Korean male and a doctoral student in the PETE program. English was his second language, but he was fluent in spoken and written English. He had taught at the university level in the United States for 3 years and was considered a good instructor by the faculty. At a recreational level, he had played tennis for 2 months and badminton for 5 years. While he had not previously taught tennis, he had previously taught badminton in a K–12 setting for 2 months. The instructor did not consider either tennis or badminton content to be his area of expertise.</p> <p>The goals of this content course were focused on teaching CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA so that participants would have a fundamental grounding in the sport that would serve them well in teaching the sport. Tennis was taught in the first half and badminton in the second half of the semester. Each content area was taught for 7 weeks, twice a week, for 80 min per lesson (i.e., 2 hr and 40 min/week). The total instructional time for each content area was of 18 hr and 40 min. The courses were organized in the following manner. Two court-based performance sessions were followed by a classroom-based lecture as a continuous cycle throughout the course for each sport. The court-based sessions were organized so that participants taught their peers in groups of four or five a sequence of instructional tasks to teach a specific skill. All peers taught each session. Thus, participants learned the instructional tasks as peers and taught the instructional tasks as teachers. Each session finished with gameplay.</p> <p>In the classroom sessions, the instructor focused on CCK-M, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA training. The CCK-M training was administered through a written test. Each week, participants took an in-class quiz on the critical elements of tennis and badminton using the class textbook ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref61">32</reflink>]). Participants also took an online content quiz. This quiz was adapted from the textbook to gain a deeper understanding of each content area. Participants who did not achieve at least 80% in the online and in-class quizzes had to retake the tests until they met the required standard. Participants created an individual task sequence based on the textbook and the content map. For the SCK-EA training, participants were asked to identify potential errors that K–12 pupils might make during the instructional tasks from videos. Each participant was asked to discuss the errors in the video and provide resolutions to fix the error. The components of the content course are presented in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Components of the Content Course</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Components</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Elements in the course</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Component 1 Classroom-based lecture</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">• CCK-M ○ Critical element quiz relevant to the lesson participants teach ○ CCK-M review on the online quiz• SCK-CD ○ Create group task plans ○ Emphasize incremental steps in the lesson ○ Emphasize extending and applying tasks in the task plan ○ Task selection through diverse resources including the textbook ○ Create content map ○ Build content maps based on the lesson they created• SCK-EA ○ Discuss common errors that students may make in performing the skills in groups ○ Write common errors that may occur in the content map ○ Error discrimination in the videos ○ Discuss how to resolve errors as a group ○ Write the resolution for the errors in the content map</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Component 2 Peer teaching and performing in the lab setting</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">• Peer teaching ○ 15–20 min of being taught by peer teachers ○ Two minutes of feedback from the supervisor after each teaching ○ 5–10 min of group feedback• CCK-P ○ 5 min content related warm-ups ○ 5 min of doubles practice</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> CCK-M = common content knowledge–movement; CCK-P = common content knowledge–performance; SCK-EA = specialized content knowledge–error analysis; SCK-CD = specialized content knowledge–content development.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-5">Dependent Measures and Instruments</hd> <p>Four categories of dependent variables were measured in this study: CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA. To measure CCK-M, a written test was used as the instrument, a performance test was used to assess motor skills (CCK-P) in tennis and badminton, content maps were used to determine SCK-CD, and observations of videos were used to evaluate SCK-EA. Each pretest and posttest were administered in person and on a single day. For each measure, stations were created, and participants rotated through each.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-6">Common Content Knowledge–Movement</hd> <p>Three subdomains of CCK-M in both tennis and badminton were assessed: knowledge of the rules and safety, knowledge of techniques, and knowledge of tactics. The tests were taken from the textbook <emph>Test Questions for Pre-Service Teachers and Students in Physical Education Content</emph> reporting content, face validity, and construct validity ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref62">25</reflink>]). The validity of the questions was determined using content validity, face validity, and construct validity ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref63">25</reflink>]). Each test was implemented pre- and postinstruction in the course (i.e., pre- and posttennis; then pre- and postbadminton instruction). In tennis, there were 41 questions; in badminton, there were 40, which were multiple-choice questions with one correct answer ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-7">Common Content Knowledge–Performance</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183920127-8">Tennis</hd> <p>All the assessment scenarios and the critical element checklists for tennis were adapted from Tsuda ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref65">23</reflink>], p. 282). Tests were conducted as discrete trials and covered <emph>forehand, backhand, ready position,</emph> and <emph>movement to the ball and to the baseline</emph>. These skills were determined by content experts to be the fundamental skills for playing tennis in the middle school development stage ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref66">23</reflink>]). The forehand stroke was assessed by having the participant stand in the middle of the service line. A researcher then threw a ball to a designated poly spot, and the participant was asked to hit the ball with a forehand stroke. This skill was evaluated based on the following criteria: (a) shoulder pointing to the net, (b) hit in front of the body, (c) follow-through over the shoulder, and (d) ball landed inside the single court.</p> <p>The backhand stroke was assessed in the same way using these criteria: (a) shoulder pointing toward the net, (b) hitting in the front of the body, (c) follow-through over the shoulder, and (d) ball landing in the single court. The ready position was assessed by looking at the participant's ready position while they were performing the forehand stroke. The assessment criteria for the ready position were (a) feet apart and staggered, (b) knees bent and leaning forward, and (c) racket up. The last technique to be assessed was movement, and the coders focused on the movement while the participants were performing the forehand stroke. The assessment criteria for the movement were (a) move behind the ball and (b) arrive on the bounce area. For all criteria, the participant's performance was coded as 1 if they met the criteria and as 0 if they did not meet the criteria. Each participant was given three trials, and thus, the total score a participant could achieve was 39.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-9">Badminton</hd> <p>We adapted all the critical element checklists for badminton from the textbook Badminton: Steps to Success ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]), and all of the test scenarios were derived from Chey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>]). Assessments included <emph>forward long serve,</emph><emph>high-clear, and ready position</emph> within an isolated practice environment. We selected these skills because they were determined to be the fundamental skills for playing beginner-level badminton in middle school. The first technique assessed was forward long serve. Participants were asked to demonstrate forehand long serves while standing in the service line. The assessment criteria for the forehand long serve were (a) backswing, (b) trunk rotation, (c) follow-through behind the nose, and (d) whether the shuttlecock landed in the appropriate area.</p> <p>The second technique assessed was high-clear. We asked participants to stand in the middle part of the court. Then, the researcher served the shuttlecock to the participants and asked them to return the serve back by performing a high-clear motion. The assessment criteria for determining the high-clear were: (a) turning sideways, (b) elbow high and whipping down, (c) follow-through toward the hip, and (d) the shuttlecock landing back of the opposite court. The last technique was the ready position. This was assessed by observing the participant's ready position during the performance of the high clear. The assessment criteria for the ready position were (a) feet apart and staggered, (b) knees bent and leaning forward, and (c) racket up. Each participant was given three trials, and the highest total score a participant could achieve was 33. All coding occurred live. Table 2 illustrates the critical elements of each sport in CCK-P.</p> <p>Table 2 Common Content Knowledge–Performance Critical Elements on Each Sport</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="left" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Tennis skill</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Critical elements</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Badminton</th><th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">Critical elements</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Forehand stroke</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(a) Shoulder pointing to the net(b) Hit in front of the body(c) Follow-through over the shoulder(d) Ball landed inside the single court</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Forward long serve</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(a) Backswing(b) Trunk rotation(c) Follow-through behind the nose(d) Whether the shuttlecock landed in the appropriate area.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Backhand stroke</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(a) Shoulder pointing to the net(b) Hit in front of the body(c) Follow-through over the shoulder(d) Ball landed inside the single court</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">High clear</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(a) Turning sideways(b) Elbow high and whipping down(c) Follow-through toward the hip(d) Shuttlecock landing back of the opposite court</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ready position</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(a) Feet apart and staggered(b) Knees bent and leaning forward(c) Racket up</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Ready position</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(a) Feet apart and staggered(b) Knees bent and leaning forward(c) Racket up</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Movement</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">(a) Move behind the ball(b) Arrive on the bounce</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><td rowspan="1" colspan="1" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183920127-10">Specialized Content Knowledge–Content Development</hd> <p>The SCK-CD of participants was assessed using content maps in tennis and badminton. Participants were asked to create a content map that would be appropriate for teaching tennis and badminton in a middle school for 10 days. Instructions for completing the content map can be viewed at https://youtu.be/v3t8hIAOFzA. We used Ward et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref69">30</reflink>]) modification of Rink's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref70">21</reflink>]) content development categories to code each content map. The task categories were informing, extending, refining, applying, extending a task while applying, refining during the applying tasks, and assessing in nongame settings ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref71">30</reflink>]). The SCK index formula was used to analyze the depth of participants' content development. The formula places the number of all informing tasks as a denominator and the number of all other tasks excluding the informing task as the numerator ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref72">30</reflink>]). According to Ward et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref73">30</reflink>]), an index score of 3.0 indicates at least three additional tasks beyond the informing task for any sequence of instruction for a skill or tactic. The SCK index score provides an indication of content development that is incremental and progressive ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref74">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-11">Specialized Content Knowledge–Error Analysis</hd> <p>In the error analysis test, a participant was asked to observe performance videos of tennis and badminton that had typical errors and to identify the errors and provide recommendations on how to correct the errors. Their responses were compared with a list of major errors compiled by one expert and the course instructor. Researchers or YouTube videos of children performing were featured in the video clips. The errors in the videos were selected based on common errors in the textbook ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref75">32</reflink>]). The errors and performance in the videos were validated by two content experts who were also physical educators.</p> <p>Each participant watched five tennis and four badminton video clips showing specific examples of techniques, tactics, rules, and etiquette errors. Video clips were played one at a time, and each clip was viewed three times. Following the three observations, participants were asked: <emph>Please tell me what errors you see from the performance in the video clip. If you see an error, let me know how you would fix it</emph>. For each skill, we used at least three primary errors. A three-category evaluation system was used to evaluate the participant's responses because identifying errors and correcting errors were treated as separate behaviors. We adapted Ayvazo and Ward's ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>]) description of mature and immature instruction, where a mature description of instruction/correction included visual and verbal representations such as cues, descriptions, analogies, metaphors, or demonstrations that made it comprehensible to learners. Immature instruction/correction was overly simple or featured incomplete representations. The participant was awarded two points if he or she identified the error and provided a mature error correction strategy. One point was awarded if the participant identified an error but the instructions for correcting it were immature. Participants who failed to identify the error were awarded zero points. It is important to note that in interpreting a participant's immature response, this does not imply that it is incorrect, but a pattern of immature responses (i.e., low scores) might indicate that the participant did not have quality correction strategies. In addition, if participants identified additional errors that were reasonable, but not included on the error checklist, they were rated as low-priority errors. However, no low-priority errors were identified in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-12">Tennis</hd> <p>The experts validated the maximum number of points that participants may earn in the tennis video analysis assessment at 44. It included one video showing <emph>forehand stroke errors</emph>, one video showing <emph>backhand stroke errors</emph>, one video showing <emph>serve errors</emph>, one video showing <emph>tactical errors</emph>, and one video showing <emph>rules and etiquette errors</emph>. In the forehand stroke error video, there were five errors: (a) the person faces the front, not sideways, (b) no follow-through, (c) stiff wrist, (d) no backswing, and (e) not stepping forward. In the backhand stroke error video, there were five errors: (a) the person faces the front, not sideways, (b) no follow-through, (c) stiff wrist, (d) no backswing, and (e) not stepping forward. In the serve error video, there were five errors: (a) the toss was too far to the side, (b) the toss was too high, (c) no shoulder extension during the toss, (d) inaccurate contact point, and (e) the person faces the front not sideways. In the tactical error video, there were four errors: (a) the person did not return to the base position after hitting the ball, (b) no communication, (c) the person did not hit the ball to the open space, and (d) no ready position. In the rule and etiquette error video, there were three errors: (a) the person served from the service line, not the baseline, (b) the person did not serve diagonal, and (c) the person reprimanded the partner when she made a mistake.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-13">Badminton</hd> <p>The experts validated the maximum number of points that participants may earn in the tennis video analysis assessment at 20. It included one video showing <emph>underhand clear errors,</emph> one video showing <emph>overhead clear errors,</emph> one video showing <emph>tactical errors,</emph> and one video showing <emph>rule and etiquette errors</emph>. In the underhand clear error video, there were three errors: (a) no follow-through, (b) taking the wrong step (the dominant foot should be in front), and (c) the contact point was too low because the performer made late contact. In the overhead clear error video, there were three errors: (a) the performer failed to contact the shuttle at the highest point, (b) the performer failed to use a sideway hitting stance, and (c) the performer lacked hitting power because he failed to use a wrist action. In the tactical error video, there were two errors: (a) the performer did not return to the position after the hit and (b) the performer did not hit the shuttlecock into the open space. In the rule and etiquette error video, there were two errors: (a) the performer moved his foot before the shuttlecock was hit on the serve and (b) the performer did not pick up the shuttlecock and hand it back to the opponent politely.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-14">Research Design and Data Analysis</hd> <p>We used a pre–post test noncomparison group design ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref77">10</reflink>]) to examine learning in the four content knowledge subdomains (CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA). The dependent variables were analyzed separately using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 28).</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-15">Descriptive Statistics</hd> <p>Participants' dependent variables were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In addition, kurtosis and skewness values were also calculated, and the Shapiro–Wilk tests were performed to determine whether the normality had been achieved. These tests showed that the normality assumption was violated in most of the data. In order to maintain consistency across the sports, nonparametric tests were adapted for each analysis. An important criterion in analyzing these studies is to evaluate how these results are interpreted within the context of a university. To accomplish this, we utilize the letter grade system widely used by American universities (A = 100%–92%; A<sups>–</sups> = <92%–90%; B<sups>+</sups> = <90%–87%; B = <87%–83%; B<sups>–</sups> = <83%–80%; C<sups>+</sups> = <80%–77%; C = <77%–73%; C<sups>–</sups> = <73%–70%; D<sups>+</sups> = <70%–67%; D = <67%–60%; F = <60%–0%).</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-16">Inferential Statistics</hd> <p>Nonparametric tests were employed to analyze the dependent variables because the sample size was small and normality assumptions were violated. We compared the median of the dependent variables between the pre- and posttests through the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. To determine whether there was a homogeneous variance among the four dependent variables, Levene's test was applied. In addition, given the small sample sizes obtained, a power analysis was conducted using G*Power (version 3.1) to ensure adequate statistical power. With an effect size of 0.5, which represents a medium effect size, a significance level of.05, and a desired power of 0.8, the analysis indicated that a minimum of 27 participants would be required to achieve sufficient power. However, the study only included 10 participants because it was limited because of class enrollment and informed consent; therefore, a Spearman's correlation was conducted to explore the relationships between participants' playing and teaching experience with dependent variables and among the four dependent variables.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-17">Treatment Integrity</hd> <p>Prior to the start of the study, we developed a checklist to evaluate whether the instructor correctly implemented each component of the content course. There were 18 criteria to be covered on a weekly basis. A researcher visited lessons in each content area three times per unit (six times in total) to assess whether the content was delivered correctly in accordance with his criteria. The treatment integrity scores for tennis and badminton were each 100%. A weekly meeting was also conducted by the researchers to discuss the application of the interventions. In the meeting, researchers reviewed participants' responsiveness to the course activities, including how participants were actually engaged and involved. Consequently, one participant was excluded from the tennis observation as a result of frequent absences.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-18">Reliability</hd> <p>Two researchers calculated interobserver agreement (IOA) at 100% of the data. The percentage of agreement was determined by dividing the agreement by the total number of trials and then multiplying by 100 ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref78">7</reflink>]). We used an 85% acceptance criterion for the IOA of all four dependent variables. The IOA for tennis was 99.26% (range 97.05%–100%). In specific, the IOA for tennis CCK-M was 100%, tennis CCK-P was 97.05% (range 94.1%–100%), tennis SCK-CD was 100%, and tennis SCK-EA was 100%. The IOA for badminton was 99.9% (range 99.6%–100%). In specific, the IOA for badminton CCK-M was 100%, badminton CCK-P was 99.6% (99.1%–100%), badminton SCK-CD was 100%, and badminton SCK-EA was 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183920127-20">Pre–Post Differences</hd> <p>Tables 3, 4, and Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent the results of the pre–post changes in tennis and badminton. Wilcoxon (paired) signed-rank test reported that there was an improvement in all measures in both tennis and badminton groups.</p> <p>Table 3 Pre–Post Results for CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA in Tennis (n = 9)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="2" colspan="1">Variable</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">CCK-M (%)</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">CCK-P (%)</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">SCK-CD (index)</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">SCK-EA (%)</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Range</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Range</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Range</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Range</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Pre</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">48.8</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">34.1–61</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">56.4</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">28.2–92.3</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.75</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.75–3.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.2</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">11.4–27.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Post</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">87.8</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">75.6–92.7</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">84.6</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">71.8–100</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4.50</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.50–6.00</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">54.5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">47.7–79.5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> CCK-M = common content knowledge–movement; CCK-P = common content knowledge–performance; SCK-EA = specialized content knowledge–error analysis; SCK-CD = specialized content knowledge–content development.</p> <p>Table 4 Pre–Post Results for CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA in Badminton (n = 9)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="2" colspan="1">Variable</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">CCK-M (%)</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">CCK-P (%)</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">SCK-CD (index)</th><th colspan="2" rowspan="1">SCK-EA (%)</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Range</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Range</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Range</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Range</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Pre</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">30</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">20–45</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">48.5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">18.2–60.6</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">1.67</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0–2.33</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">20</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0–40</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Post</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">78.8</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">50–92.5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">94</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">69.7–100</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.30</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.25–5.86</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">72.5</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">25–90</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> CCK-M = common content knowledge–movement; CCK-P = common content knowledge–performance; SCK-EA = specialized content knowledge–error analysis; SCK-CD = specialized content knowledge–content development.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 —Tennis CCK-M, CCK-P, and SCK-EA Median Test Scores. CCK-M = common content knowledge–movement; CCK-P = common content knowledge–performance; SCK-EA = specialized content knowledge–error analysis.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2 —Tennis SCK-CD Pre- and Postmedian Test Scores. SCK-CD = specialized content knowledge–content development.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 3 —Badminton CCK-M, CCK-P, and SCK-EA Median Test Scores. CCK-M = common content knowledge–movement; CCK-P = common content knowledge–performance; SCK-EA = specialized content knowledge–error analysis.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 4 —Badminton SCK-CD Pre- and Postmedian Test Scores. SCK-CD = specialized content knowledge–content development.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-21">Tennis CCK-M</hd> <p>In tennis CCK-M, the results revealed statistically significant improvements, <emph>z</emph> = −2.68, <emph>p</emph> <.01, with a large effect size, <emph>r</emph> = −.63. According to the results of the pretest, the median score indicates a failing grade (48.8%) in the university's grading system. In contrast, the median score on the posttest corresponds to a B<sups>+</sups> (87.8%) on the university's standard grading scale. A total of eight participants were at a failing level based on university letter grades, and one participant was at a D grade level at the pretest. On the other hand, no participant was at the failing level at the posttest, one participant was at the C level, three participants were at the B level, one participant was at the B<sups>+</sups> level, and four participants were at the A– level.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-22">Tennis CCK-P</hd> <p>In tennis CCK-P, the results revealed statistically significant improvements, CCK-P, <emph>z</emph> = −2.31, <emph>p</emph> <.05, with a large effect size, <emph>r</emph> = −.54. According to the results of the pretest, the median score indicates a failing grade (56.4%). In contrast, the median score on the posttest corresponds to a B (84.6%). In the pretest, six participants were at a failing level, one participant was at C, and two participants were at A– level. In the posttest, no participant was at the failing level, one participant was at C–, two participants were at C, two participants were at B, three participants were at B<sups>+</sups>, and one participant was at A level.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-23">Tennis SCK-CD</hd> <p>In tennis SCK-CD, the results revealed statistically significant improvements, SCK-CD, <emph>z</emph> = −2.67, <emph>p</emph> <.01, with a large effect size, <emph>r</emph> = −.63. According to the results, the pretest score represents an inadequate SCK-CD level (1.75), as it is lower than the index score of 3.0, whereas the posttest score represents an adequate SCK-CD level (4.5) because it exceeds the index score of 3.0. More specifically, in the pretest, eight participants scored below the benchmark of 3.0, and one participant scored higher than 3.0. During the posttest, eight participants scored above 3.0, and one participant was below 3.0.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-24">Tennis SCK-EA</hd> <p>In tennis SCK-EA, the results revealed statistically significant improvements, <emph>z</emph> = −2.67, <emph>p</emph> <.01, with a large effect size, <emph>r</emph> = −.63. However, both pre- (18.2%) and post- (54.5%) median scores indicate a failing grade. In the pretest, every participant was at the failing grade. In the posttest, six participants were at the failing grade, one participant was at D, and two participants were at C+.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-25">Badminton CCK-M</hd> <p>In badminton CCK-M, the results revealed statistically significant improvements, <emph>z</emph> = −2.80, <emph>p</emph> <.01, with a large effect size, <emph>r</emph> = −.63. According to the results of the pretest, the median score indicates a failing grade (30%) in the university's grading system. In contrast, the median score on the posttest corresponds to a C+ (78.8%). In specific, every 10 participants were at a failing level in the pretest. On the other hand, if the scores were applied to the university grading system, two participants failed, two participants achieved C+, one participant achieved C–, three participants achieved B, and two participants achieved A– in the posttest.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-26">Badminton CCK-P</hd> <p>In badminton CCK-P, the results revealed statistically significant improvements, <emph>z</emph> = −2.31, <emph>p</emph> <.05, with a large effect size, <emph>r</emph> = −.54. In the pretest, the median score indicates a failing grade (48.5%) in the university's grading system. In contrast, the median score on the posttest corresponds to an A (94%). In specific, nine participants were at a failing level. One participant was at D in the pretest. In contrast, no participant was at the failing level, one participant was at the D+ level, one participant was at C, one participant was at B, two participants were at A–, and five participants were at A level in the posttest.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-27">Badminton SCK-CD</hd> <p>In badminton SCK-CD, the results revealed statistically significant improvements, SCK-CD, <emph>z</emph> = −2.81, <emph>p</emph> <.01, with a large effect size, <emph>r</emph> = −.63. According to the results, the pretest score represents an inadequate SCK-CD level (1.67) as it is lower than the index score of 3.0, whereas the posttest score represents an adequate SCK-CD level (3.3) because it exceeds the index score of 3.0. More specifically, in the pretest, all 10 participants scored below the benchmark of 3.0. However, during the posttest, seven participants scored above 3.0, and three participants were below 3.0.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-28">Badminton SCK-EA</hd> <p>In badminton SCK-EA, the results revealed statistically significant improvements, <emph>z</emph> = −2.81, <emph>p</emph> <.01, with a large effect size, <emph>r</emph> = −.63. It was found that the median score on the pretest represented a failing grade (20%) in the university grading system, while the median score on the posttest represented a C– (72.5%) in the standard grading scale. In the pretest, every participant was at the failing grade. In the posttest, three participants were at the failing level, two participants were at C–, three participants were at C, one participant was at B, and one participant was at A– level.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-29">Relationship Between Participants' Playing and Teaching Experience With Dependent Variables i...</hd> <p>We used Spearman's rank-order correlation (<emph>rs</emph>) in Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 28) to examine the relationships between participants' playing and teaching experiences and pretest scores for CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA pretest scores in tennis and badminton.</p> <p>Three participants reported playing experience in tennis, and none of the participants had previous teaching experience in tennis. As such, it was not possible to conduct a correlation analysis between teaching experience with dependent variables but was possible for tennis playing experiences with dependent variables. When we compared tennis playing experience and CCK-P, there was a strong positive and statistically significant correlation, <emph>rs</emph> =.74, <emph>n</emph> = 9, <emph>p</emph> <.05. In badminton, none of the participants reported playing and teaching experience. Thus, it was not possible to conduct a correlation analysis was possible for these factors.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-30">Relationship Between the Dependent Variables in Pretest Among Tennis and Badminton</hd> <p>Spearman's rank-order correlation (<emph>rs</emph>) was used to examine the relationships between the pretest scores of four dependent variables in two sports. According to the results of the tennis pretest, there was a strong positive and significant correlation between CCK-M and SCK-CD, <emph>rs</emph> =.72, <emph>n</emph> = 9, <emph>p</emph> <.05. Nevertheless, other dependent variables were not significantly correlated. Table 5 presents the results of the correlational analysis in the tennis pretest.</p> <p>Table 5 Correlational Analysis of Four Dependent Variables in the Tennis Pretest (n = 9)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-M</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-P</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-CD</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-EA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-M</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.56</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.72*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.29</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-P</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.56</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.20</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.26</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-CD</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.72*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.20</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.16</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-EA</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.29</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.26</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.16</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> CCK-M = common content knowledge–movement; CCK-P = common content knowledge–performance; SCK-EA = specialized content knowledge–error analysis; SCK-CD = specialized content knowledge–content development. *<emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <p>In the badminton pretest, there was a strong negative and significant correlation between badminton CCK-M and SCK-EA in the pretest, <emph>rs</emph> = −.68, <emph>n</emph> = 10, <emph>p</emph> <.05. Other dependent variables had no significant relationship. The results of the correlational analysis in badminton are presented in Table 6.</p> <p>Table 6 Correlational Analysis of Four Dependent Variables in the Badminton Pretest (n = 9)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-M</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-P</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-CD</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-EA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-M</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.13</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.03</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.68*</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-P</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.13</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.13</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.21</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-CD</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.03</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.13</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.02</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-EA</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.68*</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.21</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.02</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> CCK-M = common content knowledge–movement; CCK-P = common content knowledge–performance; SCK-EA = specialized content knowledge–error analysis; SCK-CD = specialized content knowledge–content development. *<emph>p</emph> <.05.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-31">Relationship Between the Dependent Variables in Posttest Among Tennis and Badminton</hd> <p>A Spearman's rank-order correlation (<emph>rs</emph>) was conducted using SPSS to examine the relationships among the posttest scores for four dependent variables in tennis and badminton. In tennis, no significant relationships between CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA, and the correlational results in the tennis posttest are presented in Table 7. The results indicated that there were no statistically significant relationships between CCK-M, CCK-P, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA in badminton posttest scores. The correlational results in the badminton posttest are illustrated in Table 8.</p> <p>Table 7 Correlational Analysis of Four Dependent Variables in the Tennis Posttest (n = 9)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-M</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-P</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-CD</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-EA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-M</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.13</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.15</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.12</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-P</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.13</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.31</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.28</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-CD</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.15</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.31</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.27</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-EA</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.12</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.28</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.27</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> CCK-M = common content knowledge–movement; CCK-P = common content knowledge–performance; SCK-EA = specialized content knowledge–error analysis; SCK-CD = specialized content knowledge–content development.</p> <p>Table 8 Correlational Analysis of Four Dependent Variables in the Badminton Posttest (n = 9)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup span="1"><col align="left" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /><col align="center" span="1" /></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1" /><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-M</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-P</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-CD</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-EA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-M</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.19</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.58</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.05</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">CCK-P</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.19</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.03</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.44</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-CD</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.58</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.03</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.46</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">SCK-EA</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.05</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">.44</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">−.46</td><td rowspan="1" colspan="1">—</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note.</emph> CCK-M = common content knowledge–movement; CCK-P = common content knowledge–performance; SCK-EA = specialized content knowledge–error analysis; SCK-CD = specialized content knowledge–content development.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-32">Discussion</hd> <p>In the introduction to this paper, we noted that we know little about the effects of teacher training on PSTs in general. There is a growing body of literature examining the content knowledge of PSTs in the PETE program. We know that in terms of the content knowledge domains (CCK-P, CCK, SCK-CD, and SCK-EA), PSTs enter the university with low knowledge in these areas. This study was designed to examine an approach to the teaching of content knowledge for teaching Grades 6–12 students' tennis and badminton. Our pretest results support previous research that shows PSTs enter their content classes being able to score around 50% correct performance of the content that is typically taught in middle and high schools in tennis and badminton (CCK-P). Their CCK knowledge of tennis was near 50%, and their CCK knowledge of badminton was 30%. As expected, their knowledge content development (SCK) was very low in both sports. Similarly, their scores reflecting their ability to detect errors in 6–12 content (SCK) were around 20%. These data support the existing studies that have measured these and other sports ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref79">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref80">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>In terms of CCK-P, participants finished the class with performance scores in tennis of 84% and badminton of 94%, suggesting that the participant's performance of basic skills learned in the 7 weeks in each sport ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref82">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref83">26</reflink>]). The CCK-M for tennis was 88% and 79% for badminton. Most students exceeded the preestablished criterion of 3.0 index score for content development. Their posttest scores for error analysis were 55% and 73% for tennis and badminton, respectively. Not just showing the learning gains from pre- to posttest, a measure of the effectiveness of the class was substantive because the scores were near the benchmark. With the exception of CCK-P, and content development for both sports and CCK-M for tennis, we argue that the outcomes are not enough. We see no reason why a content course should present CCK-M scores below 90%. The tests assess the knowledge of the content taught in schools at a basic level, and as such, this is the knowledge that we would expect a teacher to know. In this study, if we use a university grading scale, the PSTs in this study who scored in badminton posttest would have received a C+, which is not a good outcome. The instructor used the same pedagogy as in tennis, but the PSTs were lower in CCK-P and CCK-M in badminton at pretest than in tennis. That said, the teaching of CCK-M, in our experience, is not difficult. PSTs need to learn the rules, safety, etiquette, techniques, and tactics used in school physical education, and we recommend more frequent assessments than we used in this study. However, not all techniques taught in the course were assessed in each assessment, such as tennis volley, badminton drop, and badminton smash. In future studies, we recommend assessing a broader range of techniques early in the class and throughout the course, as K–12 physical education classes typically cover a variety of skills beyond the basics.</p> <p>The error analysis scores were considerably lower than we expected. In this class, PSTs, in total, discriminated in class each skill approximately three times individually and in groups. We think this was not enough and recommend at least 15 times per skill. We also recommend during peer teaching, while the peer instructor is teaching and during their observation of their peers, they identify the correct and incorrect performances of their peers. Not only for the purpose of providing feedback but also to practice error analysis. Such a behavior would allow the class instructor to provide important information to assist the peer teacher.</p> <p>This study provides important information in support of evidence-based teacher education. In 2009, U.S. Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan observed that: "By almost any standard, many if not most of the nation's 1,450 schools, colleges and departments of education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21st-century classroom" ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref84">20</reflink>]). If teacher education is to address such criticism, we must provide evidence of our training effects and seek to improve that training. This study, along with others (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref85">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref86">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref87">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref88">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref89">26</reflink>]), provides an important step toward providing a database in support of evidence-based teacher education.</p> <p>There are several limitations in this study. First, we have a small sample size, which restricts the generalizability of our findings. This is a common limitation because PETE program enrollments are small, and researchers often lack sufficient samples when conducting studies that are affiliated with a single university. In reality, it is challenging to overcome issues associated with small sample sizes in PETE research. For the future, it is recommended to collaborate with PETE programs that offer similar content, design, and focus in order to recruit a greater number of participants. In addition, the samples were not randomly selected. Again, it would be extremely difficult to overcome the random assignment issue due to the small sample size involved in PETE research. Furthermore, this study lacks comparison groups. One recommendation is to collaborate with other PETE programs to include comparison groups within the project. However, it is important to consider the time devoted to each content course and ensure that the treatment group does not have a longer duration in the content course. If not, the length of the content course could be considered a threat to the internal validity of the study.</p> <hd id="AN0183920127-33">Conclusions</hd> <p>This study extends the literature in a number of ways. First, most content courses in PETE are designed to teach PSTs to perform the content either because it is assumed that PSTs entering PETE programs have acquired this knowledge from their PK–12 schooling, extracurricular activities, and out-of-school activities, or because it is assumed to be taught elsewhere in the curriculum or simply because performance-based content courses have been the historical model that PETE programs have used. The pretest scores in this study make clear along with other studies that PSTs know little about the content they are learning, and significant efforts must be made to improve their content knowledge ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref90">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref91">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref92">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref93">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, our findings demonstrate that the content knowledge of PSTs can be substantively improved by offering well-designed content courses. The study contributes to the existing literature in the field, showing the way courses can be improved ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref94">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref95">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref96">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref97">29</reflink>]). In short, this line of inquiry provides evidence-based practices for the teaching of content classes in PETE. The field of PETE has very few evidence-based practices to support its pedagogies. As such, this is an important line of inquiry.</p> <p>Third, this study also extends the investigation into error analysis instruction in PETE. There are few studies in the literature that have demonstrated both the entry-level knowledge of SCK-EA and the effects of instruction on improving it. Our work shows that there is more work to do to improve PST error analysis. Finally, as we noted, there was no comparison group used in this study, a problem faced by other authors conducting field-based studies in PETE. However, our use of letter grades as benchmarks against which to compare the reliable and valid scores of PST content knowledge from pre- to posttest allows us to establish standards against which the effectiveness of the content coursework can be compared. This is an important tool in judging the efficacy of coursework that can be used in future studies. That being said, it is also recommended that data be collected on PSTs' content knowledge retention, perhaps across years of teacher training and as an exit assessment prior to graduation.</p> <p>Ward https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7447-3594</p> <p>Dillon https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0166-1024</p> <p>Watanabe https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9878-5843</p> <p>Meyerhoff https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3642-2649</p> <p>Arroyo-Rojas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3972-6234</p> <p>Chey (wschey@adelphi.edu) is corresponding author, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3437-5276</p> <ref id="AN0183920127-34"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref76" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ayvazo, S., & Ward, P. (2011). Pedagogical content knowledge of experienced teachers in physical education: Functional analysis of adaptations. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82 (4), 675–684. 10.1080/02701367.2011.10599804</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref51" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, D.L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making subject matter knowledge part of the equation. In J.Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1–47). JAI Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref9" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ball, D.L., Thames, M.H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59 (5), 389–407. 10.1177/0022487108324554</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref42" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Chey, W.S. (2023). Assessing the effectiveness of content knowledge instruction in tennis, badminton, volleyball, and basketball in physical education teacher education [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Chey, W.S., Ward, P., Tsuda, E., Cho, K., Atkinson, O., & Oh, D. (2022). Evaluating the content knowledge in badminton of preservice physical education teachers: A case study. Journal of Physical Education and Sport Studies, 14 (2), 87–101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref2" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cho, K., Ward, P., Chey, W.S., Tsuda, E., Atkinson, O., & Oh, D. (2023). An assessment of preservice teachers' volleyball content knowledge in physical education teacher education. International Journal of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 7 (4), 335–345. 10.1080/24711616.2022.2163726</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref78" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E, & Heward, W.L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dervent, F., Devrilmez, E., Ince, M.L., & Ward, P. (2020). A national analysis of the content knowledge of Turkish physical education teacher education students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 25 (6), 613–628. 10.1080/17408989.2020.1779682</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dervent, F., Kurucan, A., Devrilmez, E., & Ward, P. (2022). Relationships between university instructors' and preservice teachers' content knowledge. European Physical Education Review, 28 (3), 686–703. 10.1177/1356336X211072489</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E., & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grice, T. (2008). Badminton steps to success (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P. (2021). A primer on content knowledge in physical education research. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 41 (1), 165–170. 10.1123/jtpe.2020-0221</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hastie, P.A., Wang, W., Liu, H., & He, Y. (2022). The effects of play practice instruction on the badminton content knowledge of a cohort of Chinese physical education majors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 41 (3), 347–355. 10.1123/jtpe.2021-0075</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, Y., Ward, P., Wang, X., & Yang, G. (2021). Examining common and specialized soccer content knowledge and demographic variables of Chinese physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 41 (1), 22–31. 10.1123/jtpe.2019-0159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hodges, M., Laughlin, M., & Brusseau, T. (2018). What's going on out there? An exploration of K–12 PE curricular models and content taught in public schools. The Physical Educator, 75 (5), 901–916. 10.18666/TPE-2018-V75-I5-8166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, I., Lee, Y.S., Ward, P., & Li, W. (2015). A critical examination of movement content knowledge courses in physical education teacher education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 34 (1), 59–75. 10.1123/jtpe.2013-0166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Launder, A., & Piltz, W. (2013). Play practice (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, H., Shen, W., Hu, A., Wang, W., Li, W., & Hastie, P.A. (2022). The impact of sport education on physical education majors' basketball content knowledge and performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 42 (3), 480–489.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, H., Wang, W., He, Y., & Hastie, P. (2020). The impact of play practice on Chinese physical education pre-service teachers badminton content knowledge. The Asian Journal of Kinesiology, 22 (3), 17–23. 10.15758/ajk.2020.22.3.17</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medina, J. (2009, October22). Teacher training termed mediocre. The New York Times. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/education/23teachers.html">www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/education/23teachers.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rink, J. (1979). Development of a system for the observation of content development in physical education [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. (Publication No. 8001811)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siedentop, D., Hastie, P., & Van der Mars, H. (2019). Complete guide to sport education. Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsuda, E. (2017). Examining the impact of a content knowledge professional development workshop using a knowledge packet on a teacher's pedagogical content knowledge and student learning in an upper elementary tennis unit [Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University]. OhioLink. (Publication No. 150301194871451)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsuda, E., Ward, P., Hastie, P., Kim, I., Kim, J., Ko, B., Ressler, J., & Santiago, J.A. (2023). What preservice teachers know upon entering physical education teacher education programs. Quest, 75 (4), 270–280. 10.1080/00336297.2023.2172436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsuda, E., Ward, P., & He, Y. (2021). Test questions for pre-service teachers and students in physical education content. Biblio Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsuda, E., Ward, P., Li, Y., Higginson, K., Cho, K., He, Y., & Su, J. (2019). Content knowledge acquisition in physical education: Evidence from knowing and performing by majors and nonmajors. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38, 221–232.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P. (2009). Content matters: Knowledge that alters teaching. In L.D.Housner (Ed.), Historic traditions and future directions of research on teaching and teacher education in physical education (pp. 345–356). Fitness Information Technology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P., Ayvazo, S., Dervent, F., Iserbyt, P., & Kim, I. (2020). Instructional progression and the role of working models in physical education. Quest, 72 (4), 410–429. 10.1080/00336297.2020.1766521</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P., Chey, W.S., & Cho, K. (2023). Evaluating the content knowledge of preservice physical education teachers. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 42 (2), 293–300. 10.1123/jtpe.2021-0291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P., Dervent, F., Lee, Y.S., Ko, B., Kim, I., & Tao, W. (2017). Using content maps to measure content development in physical education: Validation and application. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36 (1), 20–31. 10.1123/jtpe.2016-0059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P., He, Y., Wang, X., & Li, W. (2018). Chinese secondary physical education teachers' depth of specialized content knowledge in soccer. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 37 (1), 101–112. 10.1123/jtpe.2017-0092</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, P., & Lehwald, H. (2018). Effective physical education content and instruction. Human Kinetics.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Won Seok Chey; Phillip Ward; Leslie Dillon; Rio Watanabe; Sam Meyerhoff and Fabián Arroyo-Rojas</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref84"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1468748
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Effectiveness of Content Knowledge Instruction in Tennis and Badminton in Physical Education Teacher Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Won+Seok+Chey%22">Won Seok Chey</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3437-5276">0000-0003-3437-5276</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Phillip+Ward%22">Phillip Ward</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7447-3594">0000-0002-7447-3594</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leslie+Dillon%22">Leslie Dillon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0166-1024">0009-0005-0166-1024</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rio+Watanabe%22">Rio Watanabe</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9878-5843">0000-0001-9878-5843</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sam+Meyerhoff%22">Sam Meyerhoff</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fabián+Arroyo-Rojas%22">Fabián Arroyo-Rojas</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3972-6234">0000-0002-3972-6234</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Teaching+in+Physical+Education%22"><i>Journal of Teaching in Physical Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 44(2):261-271.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Human Kinetics, Inc. 1607 North Market Street, Champaign, IL 61820. Tel: 800-474-4457; Fax: 217-351-1549; e-mail: info@hkusa.com; Web site: http://journals.humankinetics.com/journal/jtpe
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Education+Teachers%22">Physical Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education+Programs%22">Teacher Education Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pedagogical+Content+Knowledge%22">Pedagogical Content Knowledge</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racquet+Sports%22">Racquet Sports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Level%22">Knowledge Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experience%22">Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Knowledge+Base+for+Teaching%22">Knowledge Base for Teaching</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0302
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0273-5024<br />1543-2769
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Purpose: Our research examined the effects of a content course in a physical education teacher education program. Methods: Ten participants were recruited from a physical education teacher education content course to examine participants' common content knowledge (CCK) and specialized content knowledge (SCK) in tennis and badminton. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to investigate (a) participants' pre-post gains in CCK and SCK, (b) the relationship between participants' playing and teaching experience with CCK and SCK, and (c) the relationship among the dependent variables in both pretest and posttest. Results: Participants' content knowledge variables increased significantly. Furthermore, the study revealed inconsistent relationships between participants' self-reported playing, teaching, and coaching experiences with their CCK and SCK scores at the pretest. We found inconsistent relationships between CCK and SCK among pre- and posttests. Discussion/Conclusion: The primary finding is that preservice teachers can improve substantively their content knowledge through well-designed content courses, but in some domains, there is more work to do.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1468748
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1468748
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1123/jtpe.2023-0302
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 261
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Physical Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pedagogical Content Knowledge
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racquet Sports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Knowledge Base for Teaching
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Effectiveness of Content Knowledge Instruction in Tennis and Badminton in Physical Education Teacher Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Won Seok Chey
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Phillip Ward
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Leslie Dillon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rio Watanabe
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sam Meyerhoff
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fabián Arroyo-Rojas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0273-5024
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1543-2769
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1