Impact of the IntegratedProgramme on the

performance of badmintonplayers

Done by: Justin Chia (8) 2C

Willy Lim (16) 2C

Yew Wee Eu (28) 2C

Contents Page

Acknowledgements

Abstract / Summary

Introduction

Background of Research topic / Literature review

Methodology

Results / Findings

Discussion / Analysis

Recommendations

Conclusions

Reference / Bibliography

Appendices

Acknowledgements

First of all, we would like to thank our teacher-mentor, Mr Kwan Hoi Soon, for guiding us through our sports project. Without his patience and guidance, we would not have been ableto complete this project both efficiently and quickly . We would also like to thank classmates who gave us critical feedback on our pilot survey which enabled us to make it more easily understood and answered.

Next, we would like to thank the badminton players for taking time to fill in our survey forms. Without them, who hailed from different schools like RI and Montford, we would not have been able to get valuable information which helped usto complete the project.

Finally, we would like to thank all those who helped us in one way or another. We greatly appreciate their help whichaided us in completing this project.

Abstract/Summary

Our research education topic is based on sports and it focuses on impact of the Integrated Programme (IP) on the performance of athletes in the field of badminton. This topic was selected after we reviewed all three of our preliminary ideas and decided that they would not be very suitable for ourresearch education. Thus, we strived to find a new topic and it was eventually accpeted by our teacher-mentor Mr Kwan.

Next, we started on our survey. Firstly, we formulated our survey questions after much consideration and gave out pilot surveys to the RI badminton team which helped us to improve on it as they intimately knew about the subject.We then found out that we had too many open-ended questions whichtook up too much time. Hence, we adjusted the survey and gave out surveys. From the results, we found trends among the respondents then we started on the survey report.

Finally, we compiled all the work that we had done in one year into our final report. It also has a copy of the survey.

Introduction

The focus of our project is to find out the impact of theIntegrated Programme (IP) on the performance of athletes in the field of badminton. The areas to be covered include the factors which affect the performance of an athlete, whether ornot IP schools perform better than non-IP schools in the fieldof badminton and what can be done to level the playing field.

We chose this topic as we wanted to find out if the Integrated Programme was giving an unfair advantage to badminton players during competitions, in terms of the amount of preparation. It enables us to find out if badminton playersin the Integrated Programme should be competing against whole national field of badminton players or only against one another. This topic can create a more fair and level playing field so more schools can have a chance to win competitions.

It will be possible to actually carry out and complete the project as getting information (statistics) will not be too much of a problem due to the large number of sources in both IP and non-IP schools, such as the school websites and the archives. There will also be results available online in places like the websites of the organisers of the competitions. We feel that our proposed course of action is realistic as there will be a lot of time available to do each section of the project. The project provides sufficient opportunity for the generation of ideas when we discuss why badminton players in IP schools perform better/worse than those in non-IP schools. It also provides opportunity for the analysis and evaluation of ideas as we have to debate on whether the ideas are suitable for the project and whether they are realistic.

This project also provides sufficient opportunity for group work as during the observation phase, we will be going individually or in pairs so we have to collect data before collating them. We will also have to discuss our ideas and

determine which information is relevant, give out surveys at schools individually before collating the responses

We have hypothesized that the Integrated Programme has aneffect on the performance of badminton players. We believe that the Integrated Programme has given an unfair advantage tobadminton players during competitions through benefits such asresources. Regarding this research study, we have 3 purposes. Firstly, we would like to find out whether the Integrated Programme has given IP badminton players an unfair advantage over their non-IP counterparts. Secondly, we would like to find out what are some of the factors that might give IP badminton players an advantage. Lastly, we would like to find out what are the methods that can be used to combat this unfairness and the feasibility of the methods discovered.

Background of research topic/Literature review

Our research education group got inspiration for our research topic after discovering that we all knew about our own sports CCA but we knew very little about other sports. Additionally, we also kept hearing complaints from our friendsin non-IP schools that we had an unfair advantage in sports competitions and this was the reason for our continued success. They also said that the wealth and resources of IP schools were the ones responsible for our success, not the fact that we are talented. As we were all sportsmen and part of Raffles Institution, an IP school, we wanted to find out ifthis claim was true so we decided to pursue this research topic to achieve both of our underlying objectives. Through this, we hope to be able to help all sports, not just badminton, to balance the playing field so everyone is playingon equal grounds and have the same opportunities to win competitions.

The Integrated Programme is an Secondary/Junior College programme where students skip the 'O' Level exams and sit for the ‘A’ Levels after six years of a hybrid secondary school-cum-junior college education. As students do not have to studyfor the 'O' Level exams, they are able to devote much more time towards their CCAs and other recreational activities. This would allow IP students to gain a more holistic and rounded education as the emphasis is not solely on academic results. Additionally, IP schools are more focused on projectsthan examination results as they feel that projects can realistically reflect a student’s ability. As such, there are much more projects in IP schools compared to non-IP schools, which take up a lot of time. This, several IP students believe, serves as a counterargument to non-IP schools statingthat IP schools have more time. Due to the differences compared to the standard curriculum, the Integrated Programme presents its own set of challenges. For example, a lot of self-discipline is needed to balance both academic syllabus and CCAs. When a student is unable to achieve a balance, either his CCA or his academic results will suffer.

However, the Integrated Programme also has its critics. It has caused controversy by allowing year 5 students from IP schools like HCI and ACS (I) to compete in the B division. This has led to protests from both non-IP schools and other IPschools as they feel that the overage sportsmen will have an advantage physically over the other sportsmen. This advantage is seemingly extremely apparent in team sports like rugby and water polo, where physical strength makes a lot of difference.

The Integrated Programme has also had a psychological effect on the badminton players. It has bred elitism, which makes the IP students think that they are the elite so they deserve to win everything. Meanwhile, it has dampened expectations of non-IP students so subconsciously; they do nottry as hard.

Additionally, the top 10% in PSLE are eligible to go to IP schools. This means that the most intellectually gifted arein the Integrated Programme, which obviously means that they are able to adapt well and cope with the more in-depth curriculum so they are able to allocate more time to developing their talents in their respective CCAs. IP schools also attract the best sporting talents as there is a perception that being in IP schools will bring them success sonon-IP schools are often left to groom their own sportsmen. This, many feel, gives IP schools an advantage.

IP schools are also able to gain an advantage over non-IPschools due to the differences in resources available. CCAs are treated just as importantly as academic results in IP schools, so more resources (money) are allocated compared to non-IP schools. Thus, IP schools will be able to purchase equipment of better quality. A good example would be badmintonrackets. There is a very big difference between high-quality ones and low quality ones, meaning they can influence the outcome of a match.

Methodology

The pilot survey was conducted from the 1st of April to the 8th of April. However, before that, we read the questions as if we were looking at them for the first time to ensure that they made sense. We then gave pilot surveys to several members of the RI badminton team as the survey is crafted for badminton players so we wanted to know if they could understand and answer the questions easily. Altogether, we gave out 8 pilot surveys. Based on their responses, we found out that there were too many open-ended questions which were complicated and took time to answer. Thus, we introduced more multiple-choice questions.

The actual survey was carried out from the 9th of April to the 20th of April, and most of them were sent to our friends in the badminton CCA in other schools and also encouraged them to send it to the rest of their team as well. Meanwhile, the rest of the surveys were hand given to badminton players by one of our group members. Altogether, we gave out 35 surveys.

More than half of the badminton players surveyed were from theC division as they were around our age group so we had much more contacts in other schools for us to distribute our surveys to. Therewere also slightly more non-IP badminton players surveyed than IP ones. This was because some of our surveys were hand-given by one ofthe group members to his friends who were in non-IP schools. It was very specific sampling as our research topic was very focused on badminton.

The response rate of the survey was 100%. However, some of thesurveys were not done very well. For example, in one of our surveys,the respondent answered all the questions, even the questions that only students from the other type of schools should answer. Thus, wecould only collate the results of 32 surveys in Microsoft Excel before doing our survey report. The participants in our survey were agreeable most likely because we were around their age and they saw that we needed some help so they answered the questions very well.

We found out some information on the internet as very little information could be found in the library. For the information that could not be found, we crafted questions in our survey that would help us to gain that missing information.

We also conducted our observations by going to various badminton matches during the badminton season. Unfortunately, by thetime we started on the observation phase the badminton nationals were already over but we still managed to observe some minor tournaments. This could damage the credibility of our results as topschools might not have sent their best players to such tournaments. We went in pairs and took down some notes on the differences betweenIP and non-IP badminton players. We also noted if there was a major disparity in skill between the two groups of players.

Results/Findings

Analysis on advantage for IP program

From the results of our survey, we have tabulated our results and discovered that badminton players in Singapore mostly feel that the IP program is an unfair advantage.

Agree that there is advantage for IP

Number of people who agree that there is an advantage for IP studentsIP Non-IPC division

B division C division

B division

5/9 4/5 11/17 1/1

From the results, we can see that around 65% of all badminton players surveyed feel that the IP program gives an unfair advantage to IP schools. Furthermore, among the IP badminton players, 55% and 80% of the C division and B division respectively feel they have an advantage. Among the non-IP badminton players, 65% and 100% of the Cand B division respectively feel that there are disadvantages for them.

Analysis on amount of effort by school

From the results of our survey, we have tabulated our results and discovered that badminton players in Singapore mostly feel that their schools have done enough to help their CCA progress.

Feel their schools have not done enough

Number of people who feel their school has not done enough to help the badminton CCAIP Non-IPC division

B division C division

B division

3/9 1/5 4/17 1/1

From the results, we can see that around 37% of all badminton players surveyed feel that their schools have not done enough to help their CCA progress. Furthermore, among the IP schools, 33% and 20% of the C and B division respectively feel that their schools have not done enough to help them. Meanwhile, among the non-IP schools, 40% and 100% of the C and B division respectively feel thattheir schools have not done enough to help them.

Analysis of opinion on possible rule

From the results of the survey, we have tabulated our results and discovered that badminton players in Singapore did not really support the existence of a rule that separates the field into non-IPand IP groups.

Support the existence of the rule

Number of people who feel that a rule which splits the competition into IP and non-IP groups should existIP Non-IPC division

B division C division

B division

3/9 4/5 6/17 1/1

From the results, we can see that around 44% of all the badminton players surveyed support the existence of such a rule stated above. Among the IP schools, 33% and 80% of the C and B division respectively feel that the rule should become official. Meanwhile, among the non-IP schools, 35% and 100% of the C and B division respectively also feel that the rule should come into effect as soon as possible.

Analysis on choice of type of school

From the results of the survey, we have tabulated our results and discovered that badminton players in Singapore largely preferrednot to go to non-IP schools.

Decide to go to non-IP schools

Number of people who decide to go to non-IP schoolsIP Non-IPC division

B division C division

B division

3/9 2/5 6/17 1/1

` From the results of our survey, we can see that only around 38% of all badminton students surveyed stated that they would like to go to non-IP schools. Among the IP schools, 33% and 40% of the C and B divisions respectively feel that they would go to non-IP schools if they had the choice again. Meanwhile, among the non-IP

schools, only 35% and 100% of the C and B divisions respectively would like to remain at IP schools.

Based on our observations at minor badminton tournaments, it was also noted that while the perception that IP schools do very well at tournaments is generally true, there are a few notable exceptions. For example, there are non-IP schools like Bendemeer Secondary School which are constantly winning tournaments and preventing IP schools from dominating the field. Conversely, there are also IP schools which are not doing very well in tournaments andmerely make up the numbers like other non-IP schools. Every match iscontested very fiercely and many end up being very close. This is most apparent in finals as we have seen that everyone is pushed to their limits and it is wrong to say that the IP badminton players are having an easy time. E.g. Nationals 2011: SSP 2:3 AMKSS, SSP 2:3

AHS, MSS 2:3 SSP. We have also observed that the skill levels of IP and non-IP badminton players are around the same.

Discussion/Analysis

From figure 1, we can tell that non-IP badminton playersgenerally feel disadvantaged. Meanwhile, the non-IP B and C division probably found it difficult to cope with extra subjects so they felt they were at a disadvantage.

We can also tell that IP badminton players themselves feel that they have an unfair advantage and this is most apparent in the B division probably because of O levels and the increase in number of subjects compared with those from the C division. Meanwhile, those IP students in C division arevery similar to non-IP in terms of stress levels so this trendis not very obvious.

From figure 2, we can tell that the non-IP badminton players generally feel that their school has not done enough to help the badminton CCA. This could be because of the perception that non-IP schools are not very rich so they focusless money on CCAs and more on other essential matters.

We can also tell that only a small amount of IP badmintonplayers feel that their schools have not done enough to help them. This might be because most titles are won by IP schools so the players are already contented with what they have and think that the schools have done enough.

From figure 3, we can tell that not many non-IP badmintonplayers (below 40%) support the existence of this rule. This could be because they think that other elite non-IP schools will start dominating so there is no chance for them to win anyway. Besides, they also feel that they improve more when competing with players of higher caliber and many feel they would rather be a better badminton player than have more trophies as they will still have their skills in the future.

We can also tell that an half of IP badminton players (50%) support the existence of the rule. This could be due to a number of reasons. Firstly, some badminton players feel bad about not giving chances to non-IP schools for them to win.

Secondly, others feel that it will finally put an end to the constant complaints by non-IP schools about them being at a disadvantage. However, some IP badminton players feel that there are already top non-IP schools so this rule gives them an advantage. They also think that logistically, it will be hard to implement.

From figure 4, we can tell that only a small number of non-IP badminton players (below 40%) would choose to go to non-IP schools if they were given the choice again. This couldbe because some of them feel that there is more stress at IP schools to succeed all the time due to high expectations. Another reason could be that they assume that chances of playing at competitions at increased as there are not many fantastic players in the team. However, some feel that they can become better badminton players due to the higher intensity and the increased amount of time for training due tothe absence of O Levels. One of the reasons could be they feelmore pride playing for an IP school as they are more prestigious than non-IP schools.

We can also tell that a moderate number of IP badminton players (35%) want to go to non-IP schools if they could choose again. This could be because they like having more timeto concentrate on playing badminton due to not taking O levels. At the same time, they also feel that IP schools have the necessary resources for them to live to their fullest potential.

From our observations at badminton tournaments, we can tell that there is only a very small gap between badminton players from IP schools and non-IP schools. Having since observed that the skill level of both groups of players is around the same, we have inferred that the number of talented players make the difference. As IP schools are more prestigious, everyone wants to join and inevitably, many talented sportsmen will join IP schools. This concentrates thetalent pool in IP schools which is not very good as only

diversity can increase the level of competition. We have also discovered that it is actually only some IP schools such as Raffles Institution and Hwa Chong Institution, which have created this perception that IP schools dominate the competitions.

The results of our survey have shown that our idea to split the badminton field into 2 groups, IP and non-IP, has not been very well received, with only 44% of the badminton players approving of it. Hence, after careful consideration we have decided that the schools can instead be split into a strong and weak group. The criteria for selection can be based on the results of the schools over the last five years. This would appease players who feel that there is always a dominant school, be it non-IP or IP. This way, every school, including those weak in badminton, have a chance to compete for the podium places. It would also create a level playing field, albeit segregating could be a problem in the future.

In conclusion, as long as the various schools work together with the Singapore Sports Council effectively, we are confident thatthere will be solutions to this problem.

Recommendations

This research education project has been successful and unsuccessful at the same time. This is because there have beentargets that have been accomplished and goals which have not been reached. We did not meet up enough times during the June holidays for the group to meet up and discuss the project. This led to some miscommunication and as a result, the survey report was done in the last week of the holidays even though we had planned to do it over the course of the entire holidays.

These problems could have been prevented if a clear meansof communication had been established and we had informed eachother when we were free, which is another problem. All of us were so busy with our CCAs and other projects that we were notable to find enough time to meet up.

Additionally, the group was unable to find any books related to the effect of the Integrated Programme. This was most probably because it only exists in Singapore so there aremost likely not many books published about it, much less its effects on the performance of badminton players. However, we still managed to find some information on the internet.

Too little surveys were given out but this was mostly because we only had a few contacts in the field of badminton. However, we still managed to give the surveys to a variety of schools. Unfortunately, we had a major flaw in our survey results. Among non-IP badminton players, there was only 1 B division player and during the collation of results, it majorly spoiled our results. After spotting this problem, we had wanted to find more players to survey but despite the bestof our efforts, we could not find anyone.

There is also the perspective of two kinds of badminton players, the IP players and the non-IP players so our bases from two fronts are covered.

Additionally, we did not want to interview anyone as we felt that for our line of research, just having our survey results was sufficient. We felt that conducting an interview would not really give us new insight into the issue.

In conclusion, the research education project turned out alright, though not perfect. There is definitely room for improvement, and we will learn from our mistakes, producing better results next time.

Conclusion

Overall, the main purpose of this research project is to find out if IP schools have an unfair advantage over non-IP schools in badminton competitions. From the results of our research project, we have deduced that generally, there is an unfair advantage for the IP schools but there are a few exceptions, namely schools like Bendemeer Secondary, who have been able to successfully groom their students to match those from IP schools.

This means that our hypothesis, which was that the Integrated Programme has given an unfair advantage to badminton players during competitions, was generally proven tobe true.

We have also discovered that the advantages exist becauseIP schools have more resources, IP students have more time to train due to there being no need to study for O levels. However, we have found out that the most important reason is actually the fact that IP schools attract a greater number of sports talent and intellectually gifted students due to their high prestige.

We have also found out that a solution to solve this unfairness would have to take into account the interests of all parties and we have since suggested a new solution. Of course, this situation must be solved by the schools and Singapore Sports Council before it gets out of hand and elitism develops rapidly. It is only then when the badminton playing field and potentially the playing field of all sports can be more equal and fair.

Bibliography

1) Group, P.D.M. (2011). What is the integrated programme? . Retrieved from http://www.epopular.com.sg/my-teen/what-is-the-integrated-programme.php

2) Institution, R. (2006). Integrated programme. Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/05aug/01348/ip.html

3) Nie, H.Y. (2010, September 01). Seven new schools join the integrated programme. Retrieved from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1078485/1/.html

4) Ang, J. (2010, February 09). The integrated program advantage - st forums [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://psle2010.blogspot.com/2010/02/integrated-program-advantage-st-forums.html

5) Zac, HC.L (2010) 2010 National inter school results. Retrievedfrom http://sites.google.com/site/badmintonschool/2010-national-inter-school

6) Singapore, S.C.C (2011) SSSC badminton competition results 2011. Retrieved from http://www.schoolsports.sg/sssc/badminton/results

Appendix

Hello, we are secondary 2 athletes from Raffles Institution. To aidus in our Research Education project, we would like to ask you some simple questions about the impact of the Integrated Programme (IP) on the performance of badminton players. We would appreciate it if you could spare us some time to answer them.

Particulars

Age:

Name of school:

Type of school: IP/non IP

Questionnaire

1a) What divisions have you taken part in?

C division

B division

1b) What are your achievements in badminton? (List the most prestigious)

________________________________________________________________________________

2) Do you think IP schools have an advantage over non-IP schools in the field of badminton?

__________

3) How has the Integrated Programme affected your preparation for competitions? (IP only)

More time

Better equipment (E.g. Rackets of higher quality)

Coaches with more experience

Has not affected

4) Do you think your school has done enough to help the badminton CCA progress? (If yes, go to qn5. If no, go to qn6)

_________

5) In what ways have your school helped in the progress of the badminton CCA?

It has attracted top badminton players from primary schools

A coach who has had experience in coaching schools to nationaltitles

Students from other CCAs but are good in badminton are roped in to increase the competition in the squad

Expensive rackets of high quality and shuttlecocks that are durable are bought to aid us

Others__________________________________________

6) What do you think should be done to help the progress of the badminton CCA?

More sports DSA talent can be attracted

Coaches who have had experience should be hired instead of having the teacher in charge coach the players

The school can accept more people into the CCA to increase chances of finding a good player

Rackets of higher quality can be bought to increase our performance

Others__________________________________________

7) Many sportsmen prefer going to IP schools as they believe it is better. Please rate this statement from 1 to 10 in terms of how trueyou think this statement is, with 1 being completely false and 10 being completely true.( For non-IP)

_________

8) Many sportsmen prefer going to non-IP schools as they feel there are more opportunities due to the smaller pool of talent. Please rate this statement from 1 to 10 in terms of how true this statementis, with 1 being completely false and 10 being completely true.( ForIP)

_________

9) What do you think of a rule that separates the playing field into2 groups, one IP group and one non-IP group?

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

10) To wrap up the survey, if you could choose whether to go to an IP or non-IP school again, which would you prefer? Why?

IP/non-IP

More opportunities to play in competitions

More time to focus on CCA as O levels is skipped

More prestigious

Learn new things faster due to good coach

Others _______________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing the survey