Effects of traditional and modern teaching patterns (TGFU and SDT) On handball shoot learning

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant professor, Department of Motor Behavior, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Motor Behavior, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Teaching models have an important impact on the teaching and learning process. The purpose of this study was to ‎investigate the effect of traditional and modern teaching models (TGFU and SDT) on Handball shoot learning.

Methods: For ‎this purpose, 36 unexperienced students in handball with the age of 14 to 16 years volunteered to participate in ‎this study. Participants were assigned to three groups of 12 each including TGFU, SDT, and direct teaching model ‎‎(control) based on pre-test scores. In the elementary education phase, the students received the same training in ‎basic education and familiarity with the type of skills and advocacy. Then all students were asked to determine their ‎pre-test level. In the acquisition phase to match the research environment with school education conditions, the ‎three groups were trained for 5 weeks with sessions two days a week and each session 60 minutes for a total of 10 ‎sessions with TGFU, SDT and control models. At the end of the last training session, all students received the ‎standard post-test assignment. After 48 hours, three groups received retention test.

Findings: The results of one-way ANOVA ‎test in post-test and retention showed no significant difference between the three groups.

Conclusion: Physical educators and ‎coaches are advised to create a range of challenges to meet the needs of each individual in the group and the goals ‎and steps to be taken in the task that they want to learn.‎

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Tahmasebi F, Salehi SK, Pak M. The Effect of Manipulating Task and Environment Constraints on Performance of Selected Fundamental Movement Skills. J Adv Sport Phys Edu. 2022;5(2):31-7.
 
[2] Salehi SK, Tahmasebi F, Talebrokni FS. A different look at featured motor learning models: comparison exam of Gallahue’s, Fitts and Posner’s and Ann Gentile’s motor learning models. Movement & Sport Sciences-Science & Motricité. 2021(112):53-63.
 
[3] Schmidt RA, Lee TD, Winstein C, Wulf G, Zelaznik HN. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Human kinetics; 2018 Oct 30.
 
[4] Feizabadi N, Oveisi NK. The Effect of Complicative Design Design Pattern Based on Constructivist Principles on Students' Progress in Biology. Journal of Research in Educational Science. 2017 Jan 20;10(35):188-99.
 
[5] Gurvitch R, Metzler M. Theory into practice: Keeping the purpose in mind: The implementation of instructional models in physical education settings. Strategies. 2010 Jan 1;23(3):32-5.
 
[6] Almond L. Reflecting on themes: a games classification. Rethinking games teaching. 1986:71-2.
 
[7] Marston HR, Smith ST. Understanding the digital game classification system: a review of the current classification system and its implications for use within games for health. In Human Factors in Computing and Informatics: First International Conference, South CHI 2013, Maribor, Slovenia, July 1-3, 2013. Proceedings 2013 (pp. 314-331). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
 
[8] Norouzi Seyed Hoseini E, Norouzi Seyed Hossieni R. Effects of TGFU Teaching Method on Self-Determine Motivation and Learning of Volleyball Serve in Adolescent Students. Motor Behavior. 2017 Oct 23;9(29):183-98, (In Persian).
 
[9] Gurvitch R, Metzler M. Aligning learning activities with instructional models. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2013 Mar 1; 84(3):30-7.
 
[10] Metzler M. Instructional models in physical education. Taylor & Francis; 2017 Jun 30.
 
[11] Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Renshaw I. Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction. Routledge; 2021 Dec 30.
 
[12] Qaderi H, Ghadiri F, Bahram A. Effects of Teacher Centered and Child Centered Approaches on Actual and Perceived Motor Competence of the Elementary School Girls. Motor Behavior. 2018 Apr 21; 10(31):39-52, (In Persian).
 
[13] Turner A, Martinek TJ. Teaching for understanding: A model for improving decision making during game play. Quest. 1995 Feb 1;47(1):44-63.
 
[14] McPherson SL, French KE. Changes in cognitive strategies and motor skill in tennis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 1991 Mar 1;13(1).
 
[15] Rink JE, French KE, Graham KC. Implications for practice and research. Journal of teaching in physical education. 1996; 15(4):490.
 
[16] Mitchell S, Mitchell SA, Oslin J, Griffin LL. Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Human Kinetics Publishers; 2020.
 
[17] Turner A. Teaching for understanding: Myth or reality? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 1996 Apr 1;67(4):46-55.
[18] Roberts SJ. Teaching games for understanding: The difficulties and challenges experienced by participation cricket coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2011 Jan 1;16(1):33-48.
 
[19] Davids K, Araújo D, Hristovski R, Passos P, Chow JY. Ecological dynamics and motor learning design in sport. Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice. 2012 Jun 25:112-30.
 
[20] Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Renshaw I. Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction. Routledge; 2021 Dec 30.
 
[21] Chow JY. Nonlinear learning underpinning pedagogy: evidence, challenges, and implications. Quest. 2013 Oct 1;65(4):469-84.
Research in Sport Sciences Education (RISSE)
Volume 1, Issue 1 - Serial Number 1
Vol. 1, No. 1, Summer 2023
July 2023
Pages 17-24

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics