Comparative analysis of students' physical fitness, basketball skills and tactics level and learning ability before the experiment
Through a test, students' physical fitness before the experiment is counted to test whether there is a significant difference between the physical fitness of experimental class 1, experimental class 2 as well as the control class before the experiment. Figure 8 shows the specific results.
Before this experiment, the physical quality of students in the two experimental classes as well as one control class is evaluated. The 50m run can measure students' explosive power level, the 800/1000m run can measure students' endurance level, the cross direction change run can measure students' flexibility level, the Sit and Reach can measure students' flexibility level, and the sit-up/pull-up is a method to measure students' abdominal strength and upper body strength level. The data in Fig. 8 suggest that the average scores of these indicators of experimental class 1 are 72.91, 71.81, 72.45, 72.68 and 75.11, respectively. The average scores of experimental class 2 are 74.33, 75.13, 75.67, 72.84 and 74.28, respectively. The average scores of the control class are 73.69, 73.84, 73.63, 73.72 and 75.71, respectively. The results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) show that the differences of the three groups of objects in these five items are within a reasonable range, indicating that it is in line with the requirements to select the two experimental classes as well as one control class as the experimental samples.
The students' basketball skills and technical and tactical application abilities are tested before the experiment to test whether there are significant differences among the three data groups before the experiment. Figure 9 shows the test results.
Figure 9 is the result analysis of the basketball technical and tactical level of the students in the two experimental classes as well as one control class after the test. The full court passing technique can reflect the high and low hand layup levels in basketball. The 60s free throw can reflect the technical level of single-hand shoulder shooting. The V-shaped layup can reflect the technical level of standing jump shot. The teaching competition can reflect the comprehensive basketball level of students in the actual basketball competition. The final test results show that the average scores of the four indicators in the experimental class 1 are 63.78, 65.97, 61.28 and 61.59, respectively, those of class 2 are 64.7, 60.7, 59.36 and 60.36, respectively, and those of the control class are 63.47, 60.66, 58.47 and 58.78, respectively. The ANOVA results reveal that the P values of these four indicators are 0.881, 0.107, 0.529 and 0.571, respectively, which are higher than 0.05, suggesting no significant difference among the three groups in the four indicators selected. It is reasonable to take the two experimental classes as well as one control class as experimental samples.
Through the test, the DL ability of students in the two experimental classes and one control class before this experiment is counted to test whether there is a significant difference. Figure 10 shows the results of the specific inspection.
Figure 10 shows the analysis results of DL ability scores of the two experimental classes and one control class before the experiment. Front structural level means that students' answers and question clues are easy to be confused. The single point structure level means that the students can remember the questions, connect the clues with the answers, and conduct at least one thinking operation. The multipoint structure level means that students can combine the answers to questions with more materials. The parallel structure level means that students can master most related materials and integrate all parts to solve problems. Extending the abstract structure level means that students should not only code existing materials, but also understand the relationship between existing information and abstract principles, and apply them to the environment. The experimental results show that the grades of the students in the experimental class 1 in these five indicators are 12.28, 11.44, 9.87, 8.62 and 9.47, respectively. The scores of students in experimental class 2 in these five indicators are 12.3, 12.06, 10.23, 9.33 and 9.6, respectively. The scores of the control class in these five indicators are 12.44, 11.84, 9.91, 9.09 and 8.97, respectively. The three groups of data are tested by the ANOVA test. The P values are 0.918, 0.259, 0.416, 0.092 and 0.055, respectively, which are all greater than 0.05, indicating that the three groups of subjects have no significant difference in the five indicators selected on DL, so it is reasonable to take them as experimental samples
Through the test, the students' autonomous learning ability before this experiment is counted to test whether there are differences in the autonomous learning ability of the students in the two experimental classes and one control class. Figure 11 shows the specific inspection results.
Figure 11 displays the analysis results of students' autonomous learning ability in the two experimental classes and one control class before this experiment. Autonomous learning ability can measure students' ability to be learning subjects. Students can make their own decisions without being dominated by others or external interference. By using reading, listening, research, practice as well as other means, individuals can acquire the level of continuous change (knowledge and skills, methods and processes, and emotions). The results show that the average score of students' autonomous learning ability in experimental class 1 is 156.2, that in the experimental class 2 is 155.14, and that in the control class is 154.32. The ANOVA results suggest that the P value of students' autonomous learning ability in the two experimental classes and one control class before the experiment is 0.412, which is greater than 0.05. Therefore, there is no significant difference in autonomous learning ability among the three groups, and it is reasonable to take them as experimental samples.
Comparative analysis of students' physical fitness, basketball skills and tactics and learning ability after the experiment
After the experiment, students' physical quality is counted again through detection. Figure 12 reveals the test results.
Figure 12 shows the statistics of physical fitness scores of students in the two experimental classes and one control class after the experiment. After the ANOVA test, the P values of the two experimental classes and one control class at 50m, 800/1000m, cross-directional running, Sit and Reach and sit-up/pull-up are all less than 0.05. It shows that after a semester of study, the three classes have differences in all of these five indicators. Experimental class 1 has the largest improvement in all physical qualities, followed by the experimental class 2 and the control class. It also shows that the flipped classroom based on DL can enhance the students' enthusiasm for exercise, virtually improving their physical quality. The students in experimental class 1 pay the greatest attention to the practice, so the final promotion effect is the best.
After the experiment, the students' basketball skills and technical and tactical application abilities are evaluated. Figure 13 shows the specific results.
Figure 13 shows the scores of students in the two experimental classes and one control class in various basketball skills and technical and tactical application abilities after the experiment. The one-way ANOVA test results suggest that after the experiment, the P values of the students in experimental class 1, experimental class 2 and the control class in the full court passing, 60s free throw, V-shaped layup and teaching competition are 0, 0, 0 and 0, respectively, lower than 0.05. It shows that there are differences among the three groups of data after the experiment. Among them, the level of experimental class 1 is significantly higher than that of the other two classes. It means that after DL, the students of experimental class 1 have improved their understanding of basketball technology and technical and tactical application ability through self-study, self-assessment, mutual assessment and other methods. Moreover, they can skillfully use technical and tactical skills to make progress in DL.
After the experiment, the students' DL ability is tested. Figure 14 is a result of the detection.
Figure 14 shows the statistics of DL ability scores of students in the two experimental classes and one control class after the experiment. The ANOVA test is used to obtain the front structure level scores, single point structure level scores, multipoint structure level scores, parallel structure level scores, and expanding abstract structure level scores of students in experimental class 1, experimental class 2, and control class after the experiment. The P values are 0.012, 0, 0.002, 0, 0, respectively, which are less than 0.05. It indicates that the three groups of objects differ in DL capabilities. The results show that after a semester of study, the experimental class 1 is basically at the DL level, and can connect the old and new knowledge for their own use. Most of the students in the experimental class 2 are at the level of multipoint level structure, while most of the students in the control class stay at the level of shallow learning.