The Effects of Differential Learning Method on the Tennis Ground Stroke Accuracy and Mobility

  •  Yahya Yıldırım    
  •  Ali Kızılet    


The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of different learning methods on learning tennis stroke skills, retention of learned skills and mobility time compared to traditional learning methods. Twenty-four (12 boys, 12 girls) high school students who have just started tennis education in a high school in Istanbul participated in this study voluntarily (Age: 15.00 ± 0.00 years, weight: 63.46 ± 10.64 kg, height: 1.65 ± 0.06 m, and body mass index 23.26 ± 2.91 kg/m2). Subjects were divided into two homogeneous groups of 12, each with equal numbers of boys (6 girls, 6 boys) according to the pre-test results. One of the groups was named control group, and the other group was named differential learning group. The training sessions were held 3 days a week for 10 weeks and each training lasted 90 minutes. The International Tennis Number (ITN) test was applied to determine the tennis ground stroke accuracy and mobility time. A modified version of the ITN mobility test was applied using the Fitlight TrainerTM device. Repeated Measures Anova test was used to examine the difference between pre-test, post-test and retention test of the same group. One Way Anova was used for the interaction between groups, measurement (pre-test, post-test, retention test) means. p < 0.05 was accepted for the significance level in the interpretation of statistical procedures. As a consequence; It can be said that the differential learning method is more effective than traditional training methods in the accuracy of tennis ground hits, but there is no significant difference between the two groups in retention of learning. Moreover, no significant difference was found in mean differences between groups and from pre-test to post-test and retention test within groups.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • ISSN(Print): 1927-5250
  • ISSN(Online): 1927-5269
  • Started: 2012
  • Frequency: bimonthly

Journal Metrics

Google-based Impact Factor (2021): 1.93

h-index (July 2022): 48

i10-index (July 2022): 317

h5-index (2017-2021): 31

h5-median (2017-2021): 38

Learn more