Feedback and Agility on Elementary School Students’ Basketball
Dribbling Skill
Raisa Indah Fardini, Nurlan Kusmaedi and Yunyun Yudiana
Sport Education Program, Postgraduate School, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jln. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229 Bandung,
Indonesia
Keywords: Feedback, Agility, Dribbling Skill, Elementary School Students.
Abstract: This article discusses the method of learning that uses immediate and delayed feedback in relation to the
degree of agility as well as its effect on the mastery of basketball dribbling of elementary school students. The
method was experimental with 2x2 factorial design. The sample was 40 students. The instrument to measure
agility is Shuttle run 4x10m and to measure dribbling skill control dribbling test was applied. After going
through the results of processing and data analysis using Anova and Tukey Model Advanced test, it can be
concluded that the method of learning by determining the type of feedback becomes important because it
affects the learning outcomes where in this study, overall, the method of learning with immediate feedback is
better than delayed feedback on basketball dribbling skills. However, the method of learning by determining
feedback is influenced by the degree of agility at which the high level of agility of the immediate feedback is
better. However, immediate feedback and delayed feedback do not have a significant difference in the low
agility group.
1 INTRODUCTION
Feedback is considered an important teaching
function and researchers in sport pedagogy have
shown interest in verifying this importance to
achievement in physical education (Lee et al, 1993).
In the field learning activities, feedback is a very
important component for the success of student
learning (practice). Feedback can be delivered
verbally (oral) and written. Feedback can be done
immediately after the practice takes place without
having to wait for the next practice (immediate
feedback), or it can be given at a certain time interval
after the student through multiple feedbacks.
However, the processing of information and memory
capabilities of learners, especially the age of the
children is still limited, so it is doubtful that young
students can receive and store very much information
during multiple feedback presentations. It is also
doubtful that learners can be very effective in
correcting subsequent actions in more than one way,
especially with feedback on motion pattering
(Schmidt and Lee, 2013).
Much of the research in terms of learning is
concerned with the function of feedback information
that refers to its role in providing information about
individual performance in relation to the purpose of
the learning task (Wulf and Shea, 2004). Some recent
findings suggest that the benefits of general feedback
are motivational and can foster self-confidence and
students can recognize their strengths and weaknesses
(Schmidt and Lee, 2005). The principle of feedback
is to inform students clearly, specifically, personal
and honest about how to improve their performance
(Bloxham and Boyd, 2007; Allin and Turnock, 2007).
If there is no corrective feedback, students may
wonder whether the response is true or false (Epstein
et al., 2001).
Specifically, immediate feedback has the benefit
of improving verbal mastery and motor skills,
generating efficient retention, and improving
classroom management and improving student
interaction in the classroom, as well as improving
student performance. (Anderson et al., 2001; Dihoff
et al., 2010; Haryoko, 2011). A learning procedure in
the field that does not use immediate feedback may
lead to misunderstanding of Mutch students (Mutch,
2003). Direct and delayed feedback has the same
level of effectiveness Robin (Dihoff et al., 2010).
Although delay feedback has not been supported in
some studies but delayed feedback is as effective as
immediate feedback (Haryoko, 2011).
Fardini, R., Kusmaedi, N. and Yudiana, Y.
Feedback and Agility on Elementary School Students’ Basketball Dribbling Skill.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 207-211
ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
207

Some of the above opinions still seem to be
disagreements about the effects of feedback strategies
(immediate feedback and delayed feedback) on
process quality and learning outcomes. Robin (Dihoff
et al., 2010) states that although there is sufficient
agreement that learning should be facilitated by
feedback, it is questionable as to what kind of
feedback is most effective. In accordance with the
explanation, the authors want to prove which type of
feedback is more effective on learning the type of
skill in improving students’ dribbling skill. So, based
on the above background, the author is interested to
examine the problem. The research tittle is
formulated as follows: The effect of Feedback and
Agility on Elementary School Students’ Basketball
Dribbling Skills.
2 METHODS
2.1 Participants
The population in this study is 80 sixth grade students
of Al Ma'soem Elementary School. The reason for
taking this population is the learning of a large ball
(bolabasket game) at the sixth grade elementary
school level. The sampling technique used in this
study is the upper and lower groups with a total of 40
people taken by 27% of the upper group and 27% of
the lower group.
2.2 Instrument
2.2.1 Shuttle Run 4x10m
Shuttle runs are used to assess a person's ability to
measure speed, control the body and change direction
between marked lines. In this study the testee must
move the beam with a distance of 4x10m.
2.2.2 AAPHERD Basketball Skills Test
AAPHERD Basketball Skills Test is used to measure
basic basketball skills consisting of dribbling test,
defensive test, passing test and shooting speed test
(Komarudin, 2016).Because in this study the
dependent variable is dribble, so researchers adopt
this instrument only the dribbling test only.
2.3 Procedures
The Sample did the pretest of agility test. The result
was used to divide the sample into two groups; high
group and low group. The specified samples were
divided into four groups based on the agility test, i.e.
a) high student agility group was given immediate
feedback, b) group of students with low agility was
given immediate feedback, c) high student agility
group was given delayed feedback and d) group of
students of low agility level were given delayed
feedback.
The length of the study was six weeks with
frequency of twice a week training referring to Selder
and Rolan's research results in Magill (1994)
comparing the feedback effect with videotape and
verbal feedback, where the differences between the
two different treatment groups appeared after six
weeks . The training duration of each meeting is
seventy minutes (two hours of lesson) in accordance
with the learning setting of Physical Education of
Sports and Health in Elementary School.
The treatment was conducted in the immediate
feedback group via verbal in students who had high
agility and low agility with the material adjusted for
an increase in the type of skill. While in the delayed
feedback group, the students who have high agility
and low agility in the form of giving feedback in the
form of video recording (playback) and professional
video. The recording is shown to students as feedback
with the correct search superimposed over student
search (Schmidt, 2013). Video recording solves many
issues in Movies: Feedback on performance
(performance) can be seen after just a few seconds of
recording backwards, and this replay will capture the
details of the movement very well. And the material
given to the delayed feedback group is the same as the
immediate feedback group material so as not to lose
weight on one of the groups.
After twelve meetings, the sample performs a
posttest. The data was analyzed in SPSS 23.
3 RESULTS
The data has been analyzed through homogenity and
normal distribution test. It was revealed that the data
were normally distributed and homogenous. Normal
distribution was done to dribbling score from all the
sample. It was done to confirm the data normal
distribution. Homogenity test on the other hand was
carried out to identify the homogenity level of the
data.
The normal distribution was done through
Shapiro Wilk Test in 0.05 significance level by using
SPSS version 23. Shapiro Wilk Test was used as the
sample is less than fifty. For the homogenity test,
Levene test was applied in 0.05 significance level by
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
208

using IBM SPSS 23. and the result showed that the
data were normally distributed and homogenous.
Furthermore, the hypothesis was tested using
Two-way ANOVA. The test was intended to
discover the effect of agility and feedback on the
dribbling skills. the hypothesis testing was done in
0,05 significance level and the critical value is 3,55.
The result of the test is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: The Summary of Two-way ANNOVA.
Source
Type III
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Corrected
Model
2596,998
a
3
865,66
23,91
0,000
Intercept
100000,00
1
100000,0
2762,85
0,000
Agility
156,687
1
156,68
4,329
0,046
Feedback
629,361
1
629,36
17,388
0,000
Agility *
Feedback
1810,950
1
1810,95
50,034
0,011
Error
1303,002
36
36,19
Total
103900,00
40
Corrected
Total
3900,000
39
Based on table 1 in feedback the F observed is
17,388 with sig. 0,000 in feedback. It implies that sig
< 0,05.it means that sig < 0,05. It leads to the
conclusion that Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted.
It can be concluded that there is a difference in
dribbling skill between immediate and delayed
feedback.
Furthermore, to identify the interaction between
feedback and agility, based on table 1 in agility and
feedback. It shows that F is 50,034 with sig. 0,011. It
implies that sig < 0,05. It leads to the conclusion that
Ho was rejected and Ha was accepted. It can be
concluded that there is an interaction between
dribbling skill and immediate and delayed feedback.
After the ANOVA test, Post Hoc test was then
used. Post Hoc test was used as a further test to see
the significance of the difference. Ost Hoc test was
done along with in Tukey Test to identify which
categories from feedback variable that have
significant differences. The Post Hoc test was done in
0.05 significance level.
Table 2: The Summary of Post Hoc test with Tukey.
(I) kl_ub
(J) kl_ub
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Sig.
Kel_tinggi_U
BSegera
Kel_tinggi_UB
Tertunda
21,39
*
0,000
Kel_rendah_
UBSegera
Kel_rendah_UB
Tertunda
-5,52393
0,188
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Table 2 shows that high agility have mean
difference of 21,39 with sig. 0,000. It implies that sig
< 0,05. It leads to the conclusion that Ho was rejected
and Ha was accepted. The third hypothesis testing
showed that there is a difference in dribbling skill
between those who get immediate feedback and those
who get delayed feedback in students with high
agility.
Table 2 shows that high agility have mean
difference of -5,552393 with sig. 0,188. It implies that
sig > 0,05 It leads to the conclusion that Ho was
accepted and Ha was rejected. It can be concluded
that there is no difference in dribbling skill between
immediate and delayed feedback in students with low
agility
4 DISCUSSION
Overall, the highest average score is in the immediate
feedback. This is in accordance with the provision of
a quick understanding or immediately after the
appearance will have a positive effect on appearance
(Magill, 1994). The advantages of immediate
feedback have been firmly demonstrated to increase
the mastery of verbal materials and the skills of motor
skills (Anderson et al., 2001). The results of this study
also confirmed Kulik and Kulik (1988) who reported
that immediate feedback was more effective than
delayed feedback to apply. It was supported by Rink
(1985) in Propst and Koesler (1998) saying that “If
the feedback is delayed beyond the point of
remembering the behavior, then individuals do not
benefit from that feedback.” This means that if
feedback is delayed beyond the point of remembering
behavior, then the individual does not benefit from
the feedback.
The speed of success or failure of students to
master a particular type of skill is determined by
precisely the feedback given by the teacher, trainer or
student friend in the practice. This becomes an
interesting discussion to be studied is the information
receiving time. Information feedback may be
provided immediately after the completion of the
appearance or after being delayed for some time
(Dewi and Sitompul, 2016).
Based on the second hypothesis, this study
revealed that there is an interaction between feedback
and agility and dribbling skill. Providing feedback to
students is one way that can be used by teachers or
trainers to encourage positive changes and motivate
the students to think deeply in their learning. With
feedback students will know the extent to which
Feedback and Agility on Elementary School Students’ Basketball Dribbling Skill
209

learning developments have been produced. In
addition, the level of agility is one of the factors
required in doing physical activity and exercise.
Students who have a high level of agility in
following the learning process that ultimately have an
impact on the achievement of learning outcomes
more optimal skills than students who have low level
of agility (low). Therefore, it can be concluded that
feedback and agility are two interconnected factors
contributing to the dribbling skills in basketball. The
practical finding from the researcher’s observation
suggested that there is an interaction between
feedback and agility in students’ dribbling skill.
The third hypothesis testing showed that there is
a difference in dribbling skill between those who get
immediate feedback and those who get delayed
feedback in students with high agility. Based on the
finding, the difference is caused by the two different
characteristics of feedback and the test of dribbling in
basketball games. The research data showed that
someone is considered good in dribbling if he has
speed and agility in changing direction without
looking at the ball. Agility is the ability to change the
direction and position of the body quickly and
precisely while moving, without loss of balance and
awareness of the position of his body (Harsono,
1988). A good dribble should be able with the right
and left hand is also influenced by the speed and
agility in changing direction without having to see the
ball (Oliver, 2007). So, Agility is an important factor
in dribbling.
This means that someone who has a high level of
agility is expected to be more successful in
completing the task of special motion skills, let alone
supported by providing appropriate feedback or
appropriate. Conversely, students who have a low
level of agility will find it difficult to learn and take
longer to attain their learning outcomes as they are
constrained by their ability. Based on this, it is in line
with the results of this study that immediate feedback
is more suitable to apply to students who have high
agility because the learning process is done
immediately and immediately notified or corrected
what is the lack of movement. It is also intended that
students can take into account the achievements and
the results of further learning. If the period between
the implementation of the movement and when the
feedback is long enough, it is feared that the
motivation to improve will be lost (Dewi and
Sitompul, 2016).
Testing of the fourth hypothesis shows that there
is no difference in the type of dribbling skills between
immediate feedback and delayed feedback on groups
of students who have low agility. The level of skill
and environmental difficulties affects skill training.
Dribbling in a basketball game is the basic skill that
needs to be learned.
Immediate feedback is given immediately by
giving correction or motivation so that the students
can perform better when doing the movement.
Delayed feedback on the other hand is given after the
students complete the practice. Delayed feedback is
done via video replay and to compare videos of
professional athlete are played. This is done so that
students have a good picture of what movements so
that students can analyze for themselves what is less
than the movement itself and the shortcomings or
mistakes can be analyzed in depth.
The basic thing that the writer observes from both
feedbacks occurs, among others, because of the
process of learning implementation, which in the
immediate feedback students are required to quickly
understand what the mistakes, so that the group of
students who have high agility becomes an obstacle
in following the learning that uses delayed feedback
because they have to wait for the movement is over
and the new corrected mistakes that eventually make
students feel bored and saturated. In the provision of
delayed feedback there is time to be considered (Dewi
and Sitompul, 2016). Whereas, in students with low
agility, it is seen that they are experiencing a less
supportive constraint on learning activities that use
immediate feedback, as we know the characteristics
of immediate feedback, the students immediately
receive the error instructions and directly correct
them
Teachers must be good at choosing the right
method by displaying the advantages of a method and
minimizing the shortcomings (Sutisna, 2014). This
means that teachers not only understand it but apply
it let alone be sorted according to the level of agility
of students. . It was supplemented by Hastie et al.
(2017) stating that “The grouping of students in terms
of skill level has implications for them in-game
behaviors, … potentially for their motivation to
persist during play.” Student groupings in terms of
skill levels have implications for behavior in their
game, and potentially for their motivation to survive
during play. Based on the practical findings from the
author's results, it turns out that the type of dribbling
skills in a basketball game of elementary school
students, in groups of students who have low agility
delayed feedback is better than immediate feedback.
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
210

5 CONCLUSIONS
After going through the results of processing and data
analysis using Anova and Tukey Model Advanced
test, it can be concluded that the method of learning
by determining the type of feedback becomes
important because it affects the learning outcomes
where in this study, overall, the method of learning
with immediate feedback is better than delayed
feedback on basketball dribbling skills. However, the
method of learning by determining feedback is
influenced by the degree of agility at which the high
level of agility of the immediate feedback is better.
However, immediate feedback and delayed feedback
do not have a significant difference in the low agility
group.
REFERENCES
Allin, L., Turnock, C., 2007. Assessing Student
Performance in Work Based Learning, (online)
available at: www.practicebasedlearning.org. 11
February 2017.
Anderson, D. I., Magill, R. A., Seklya, H., 2001. Motor
Learning as a Function of KR Schedule and
Characteristics of Task Intrinsic Feedback. Journal of
Motor Behavior. Vol.33, 59-66.
Bloxham, S., Boyd, P., 2007. Developing Effective
Assessment in Higher Education, Open University
Press. NewYork.
Budiman, D., 2009. Bahan Ajar Pedagogi Olahraga FPOK
UPI, FPOK UPI. Bandung.
Dewi, C. C., Sitompul, H., 2016. Pengaruh Pemberian
Umpan Balik Dan Kemampuan Motorik Terhadap
Hasil Belajar Shooting Siswa Smp Negeri Dikecamatan
Langsa Kota. Jurnal Teknologi Pendidikan. Vol. 9, No.
1, April 2016, p-ISSN: 1979-6692; e-ISSN: 2407-7437.
Dihoff, R. E., Brosvic, G. M., Epstein, M. L., 2010. The
Role of Feedback during Academic Testing: the Delay
Retention Effect Revisited, Department of Psychology,
Rider University. Lawrenceville.
Drowatzky, 1985. Motor Learning Principle and practice,
Burgess Publishing Company.
Epstein, M. L., Epstein, B. B., Brosvic, G. M., 2001.
Immediate Feedback during Academic Testing.
Psychological Reports. Vol. 88, 889-894.
Harsono, 1988. Coaching Dan Aspek-Aspek Psikologis
Dalam Coaching, CV. Tambak Kusuma. Jakarta.
Haryoko, S., 2011. Efektivitas Strategi Pemberian Umpan
Balik Terhadap Kinerja Praktikum Mahasiswa D-3
Jurusan Teknik Elektronika. Jurnal Cakrawala
Pendidikan. 1(1).
Hastie, P. A., Ward, J. K., Brock, S. J., 2017. Effect of
graded competition on student opportunities for
participation and success rates during a season of Sport
Education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy.
22(3), 316–327.
Komarudin, 2016. Penilaian Hasil Belajar Pendidikan
Jasmani, PT Remaja Rosdakarya. Bandung.
Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., 1988. Timing of Feedback and
Verbal Learning. Review of Educational Research
(Journals Online). Vol. 58, 79-97.
Lee, A. M., Keh, N. C., Magill, R. A., 1993. Instructional
effects of teacher feedback in physical education.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 12(3), 228-
243.
Magill, R. A., 1994. The influence of augmented feedback
on skill learning depends on characteristics of the skill
and the learner. Quest. 46(3), 314-327.
Mahendra, A., 2007. Teori Belajar Mengajar Motorik,
FPOK UPI. Bandung.
Moran, K. A., Murphy, C., Marshall, B., 2012. The need
and benefit of augmented feedback on service speed in
tennis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 44(4),
754-760.
Mutch, A., 2003. Exploring the Practice of Feedback to
Students. Active Learning in Higher Education. Vol.
4(1): 24–38.
Oliver, J., 2007. Basketball Fundamentals (Dasar-dasar
Bolabasket), PT Intan Sejati. Bandung. Penerjemah:
Wawan Eko Yulianto.
Propst, D. B., Koesler, R. A., 1998. Bandura goes
outdoors: Role of self ‐ efficacy in the outdoor
leadership development process, Pages 319-344 |
Received 13 May 1966, Accepted 29 Jul 1998,
Published online: 13 Jul 2009
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490409809512289.
Schmidt, R., Lee, T., 2013. Motor Learning and
performance, from principles to application, Fifth
Edition, Human Kinetics. United States, America.
Sutisna, D., 2014. Pengaruh Metode Mengajar dan Motor
Ability terhadap Hasil Belajar Keterampilan Lay-up
Shoot Bolabasket, SPS UPI Bandung. Bandung, Tesis
Magister.
Wissel, H., 2000. Bola Basket Dilengkapi Dengan Program
Pemahiran dan Teknik, PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Jakarta. Alih Bahasa. Bagus Pribadi.
Wulf, G., Shea, C. H., 2004. Understanding the role of
augmented feedback: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
In: WilliamsAM, HodgesNJ, eds. Skill Acquisition in
Sport: Research, Theory and Practice, Routledge.
London. 2004;121–44.
Feedback and Agility on Elementary School Students’ Basketball Dribbling Skill
211