Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
0520-7371
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Immediate And Retention Effects Of Teaching Games For Understanding Approach On Basketball Knowledge

Gabriela Olosová
  • Department of Sport Games, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ludmila Zapletalová
  • Department of Sport Games, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-09-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005

Abstract

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) links tactics and skills by emphasizing the appropriate timing and application within the tactical context of the game. It has been linked to the development of enhanced tactical knowledge. The purpose of the study was to determine immediate and delayed effects of TGfU on procedural and declarative knowledge of basketball and to compare it with a technical approach. Experimental group (EG) (11 fifth graders + 18 sixth graders) was taught by TGfU and a control group (CG) (16 fifth graders + 24 sixth graders) was taught by a technical approach for 8 weeks in Physical Education (PE) classes, both. A written test was constructed to evaluate pupils’ declarative and procedural knowledge of basketball. The test was applied after the intervention to determine immediate effects and 8 months after the intervention to determine retention effects of the experimental programme. Shapiro-Wilk test, Wilcoxon T-test, Man-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis of obtained data. Cohen’s d was used to calculate effect size. Generally basketball knowledge was better in EG than in CG after the intervention (p<0.05) what confirms moderate effect size. When declarative and procedural knowledge were analysed separately there was no significant difference between EG and CG. Nevertheless, moderate effect sizes indicate that the data are particularly meaningful in terms of school practice. Retention effects of both approaches were similar. Total knowledge and declarative knowledge were worse after 8 months than immediately after the intervention in both groups (p<0.01). In both groups, there was no significant difference in procedural knowledge between the test written immediately after the intervention and 8 months later. Differences of changes were not significant between the groups.

Keywords: Physical Education; basketball; Teaching Games for Understanding approach

References

  • 1. ALLISON, S. and R. THORPE, 1997. A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus games for understanding approach. In: British Journal of Physical Education, 28 (3), p. 9-13.Google Scholar

  • 2. BUTLER, J. I. and L.L. GRIFFIN, 2010. More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally. Human Kinetics. ISBN-13: 978-0-7360-8334-8.Google Scholar

  • 3. COHEN, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988.Google Scholar

  • 4. GRIFFIN, L. and J. BUTLER, 2005. Teaching Games for Understanding: theory, research, and practice. Champaign: Human Kinetics. ISBN 0-7360-4594-5.Google Scholar

  • 5. GRIFFIN, L. L., J.L. OSLIN and S.A. MITCHELL, 1995. Two instructional approaches to teaching net games. Poster session presented at the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance National Convention, Portland, OR.Google Scholar

  • 6. KIRK, D. and A. MACPHAIL, 2002. Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. In: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, p. 117-192.Google Scholar

  • 7. MCBRIDE, R.E. and P. XIANG, 2004. Thoughtful decision making in physical education: a modest proposal. In: Quest, 56, p. 337-354.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8. MITCHELL, S. A., L.L. GRIFFIN and J.L. OSLIN, 1995. Two instructional approaches to teaching invasion games. Poster session presented at the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance National Convention, Portland, OR.Google Scholar

  • 9. OSLIN, J. L. and S.A. MITCHELL, 2006. Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In KIRK, D., MACDONALD, D., OSULLIVAN, M. 2006. Handbook of teaching physical education. London: Sage, p. 627-651.Google Scholar

  • 10. PIAGET, J., 1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

  • 11. PICKARD, A. and P. MAUDE, 2014. Teaching Physical Education Creatively: Learning to teach in the primary school series. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-65607-8.Google Scholar

  • 12. POPELKA, J., 2012. Comparing different approaches to teaching volleyball on volleyball theoretical knowledge of secondary school pupils (in Slovak). In Od výskumu k praxi v športe. Zborník vedeckých prác. Bratislava: STU, p. 243-248. ISBN 978-80-227-3854-5.Google Scholar

  • 13. TURNER, A. P. and T.J. MARTINEK, 1999. An investigation into TGFU: Effects on skill, knowledge and game play. In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, p. 286-296.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-09-30

Published in Print: 2015-05-01


Citation Information: Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae, ISSN (Online) 0520-7371, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005.

Export Citation

© Gabriela Olosová et al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in