Video teaching of archery technique: Yang 2024

The study compares two groups of 15 first-year students at Jilin University, in China, who took the same 8-week archery course. The experimental group also had short teaching videos to watch outside class time, with slow motion and footage from several angles; the control group had only the traditional lessons.

At the end of the course the video group had higher technique marks on almost every item assessed: 82.70 against 74.80 for the draw, 81.80 against 73.60 for getting into position, 73.00 against 58.60 for continuous use of force, 87.60 against 82.70 for the finish of the shot and 82.20 against 76.00 overall. Only for the standing position were the two classes level (86.50 and 85.90). In a test repeated during the course the video group went from 5.15 in week 1 to 9.88 in week 8, while the control group stayed between 4.35 and 5.17. In another test, on a scale the paper does not describe, the groups started level (1.88 and 1.85) and finished at 2.63 and 1.56. The students with videos described themselves as very satisfied, with means between 2.60 and 2.76 on the questionnaire.

The authors say they started from 300 first-year students in six classes and chose one class of 60, split into two groups on the basis of an initial test and allocated to video or control by drawing lots. How 60 became 30 is unclear: in the abstract the 30 are picked at random from the 60, in the methods by systematic sampling. The course, the same for everyone, ran from safety and the culture of traditional Chinese archery in week 1 to string handling, etiquette, aiming and shooting with eyes closed, with review, self-assessment and final tests in the last two weeks. According to the authors tests were held every two weeks, but the tables report weeks 1, 2, 4 and 8.

Each part of the shot (standing position, draw, getting into position, continuous use of force, finish) was given a mark, apparently out of 100, and a band from excellent to fail, and the groups were compared with t-tests. The paper does not say who gave the marks or on what criteria, whether the assessor knew who had the videos, what bow was used, at what distance people shot, or how many videos there were and how long. The weekly test and the before-and-after test are not described either, so it is not known what they measure. For the score on the target the table gives only the video group, 42.70 points and a "density" of 18.60 cm, perhaps the spread of the arrows, and not the control values.

The paper's numbers do not hold together. In the tables of marks both classes are labelled as male and contain 14 or 15 students depending on the table, and 10 in the summary table. Text and tables give different values for the same item (81.50 and 81.80 for getting into position), and two tables that seem to summarise the same comparison give different overall means (82.20 against 76.80 in one, 82.20 against 76.00 in the other). In the weekly test the comparison between groups uses 29 degrees of freedom and gives almost identical t values in all four weeks (from 10.59 to 10.69), even though the gap between the groups grows from 0.80 to 4.71 points: with two independent groups of 15 this cannot add up. The video group was already ahead in week 1 (5.15 against 4.35), and in the before-and-after test the control group gets worse (from 1.85 to 1.56) without comment.

Then there is what is missing. Technique marks are judgements, not measurements, and it is not known whether the person giving them knew the groups. The experimental group also spent the video time on archery, since the videos were watched outside class, so the comparison cannot separate the effect of video from that of extra study time. There is no follow-up after the end of the course.

The idea is sensible and familiar to anyone who teaches beginners: give them short videos of the shot to watch again at home, in slow motion and from several angles. This study, however, is not enough to say how much it helps. The differences reported are large, but they come from marks whose criteria are not given, from tests that are not described and from tables that contradict each other, in an eight-week university course with fifteen students per group.

For archers and coaches two modest observations remain. The students who had the videos were pleased with them and said they understood the shot better; in the standing position, perhaps the easiest part to learn in class alone, the groups did not differ. The study allows no comparison of scores on the target. Finding out whether videos outside class improve how archery is learnt would need a study with assessors who do not know the groups and the same practice time for everyone.