The effects of basketball training based on nonlinear pedagogical (TGFU and GS) and traditional methods on the development of social skills in teenage girls

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 urmia university

2 motor behavior, sport science faculty, urmia university

Abstract

Background and Purpose: One of the factors influencing the learning and participation of students in sports activities in schools and other educational environments is the teacher's teaching method. This study aimed to investigate the effects of basketball training based on nonlinear pedagogical (TGFU and GS) and traditional methods on the development of social skills in teenage girls.
Methodology: The statistical population of the study was Urmia secondary school girls. Subjects were 60 students with an average age of 13.06±3, did not  have any experience in playing basketball, and were physically healthy. They were randomly divided into three groups, each consisting of 20 participants. Matson’s evaluation of social skills questionnaire was used to collect data.
Results: The findings of the study showed that the components of proper social skills, superiority, high self-confidence, and relationship with peers were significantly better in training based on non-linear methods (TGFU and GS) compared to the traditional methods. However, there was no meaningful difference between the two methods of TGFU and GS, except in relationship with peers component in which the GS was better than the TGFU.
Conclusion: Through the use of new nonlinear approaches in teaching, educational instructors can play a more effective role in improving students' social skills as well as teaching the games more effectively.

Keywords

References

References
 
1. Ahmadi, P. (2004). Designing an integrated curriculum model and comparing it with existing curriculum in elementary school in Iran. Ph.D. thesis, Tarbiat Modarres University, 18-29. (Persian).
2. Ramezaninezhad, R. (2008). Physical education in schools. Tehran: Samt Publication, Third Edition. (Persian). 
3. Davids K, Kingsbury D, Bennett S, Handford C. Information-movement coupling: Implications for the organization of research and practice during acquisition of self-paced extrinsic timing skills. Journal of sports sciences. 2001;19(2):117-27.
4. Dania A, Kossyva I, Zounhia K. Effects of a Teaching Games for Understanding Program on Primary School Students physical Activity Patterns. European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science. 2017 Mar 17.
5. Butler J.I., Griffin L.L. (2010). More Teaching Games for Understanding: Moving Globally. Human Kinetic.
6. Bunker, D., & Thorpe. R. (1982). A Model for the Teaching of Games in Secondary Schools. Bulletin of Physical Education 18(1), 5–8.
7. Smith L, Harvey S, Savory L, Fairclough S, Kozub S, Kerr C. (2014) Physical activity levels and motivational responses of boys and girls: a comparison of direct instruction and tactical games models of games teaching in physical education. European Physical Education Review 1-21.
8. Buck, M. M., Lund, J. M., Harrison, J. M., & Cook, C. B. (2007). Instructional strategies for secondary school physical education. New York: McGraw Hill.
9. Mandigo, J. L., & Holt, N. L. (2002). The inclusion of optimal challenge in teaching games for understanding, (pp. 1-23). Spartan, Canada: Brock University Department of Physical Education.
10. Light, R. Georgakis, S. (2016). Can ‘Game Sense’ make a difference? Australian pre-service primary school teachers’ responses to ‘Game Sense’ pedagogy in two teacher education programs. Quest, 55(2), pp.161-176.
11. Pill, S., Penney, D., & Swabey, K. (2012). Rethinking sport teaching in physical education: A case study of research based innovation in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(8), 118-138.
12. Pill, S. (2013). Play with purpose: Game sense to sport literacy (3rd ed). Hindmarsh: Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (ACHPER).
13. Evans, J.R., & Light, R.L. (2008). Coach development through collaborative action research: A rugby coach’s implementation of game sense pedagogy. Asian Journal of Exercise and Sport Science, 5(1), 31-37.
14. Chen, S., & Light, R. (2006). ‘I thought I’d hate cricket but I love it!’ Year six students’ responses to Game Sense pedagogy. Change: Transformations in Education 9(1), 49-58.
15. Light, R. (2013). Game sense: Pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment. London: Routledge.
16. Gréhaigne, JF, Godbout P, Bouthier, P. (2001). The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports. QUEST. Natl Assoc Kinesiol Phys Educ Higher Educ 53:59–75.
17. Siedentop, D. (2001). Introduction to physical education, fitness, and sport, 4th edn. Mayfield Publishing Company, Los Angeles.
18. Stoltz, SA. Pill, S. (2014). Teaching games and sport for understanding: exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review 20(1): 36-71.
19. O’Leary N. Learning informally to use the ‘full version’of teaching games for understanding. European Physical Education Review. 2016; 22 (1):3-22.
20. Evans, J. (2012). Elite rugby union coaches' interpretation and use of Game Sense in New Zealand. Asian Journal of Exercise and Sports Science, 9(1), 85-97.
21. Kirk, D. (2005). Future Prospects for Teaching Games for Understanding. In L. Griffin & J. Butler (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice (pp. 209-223) Champaign: Human Kinetics.
22. Jones, R., Marshall, S., & Peters, D. (2010) Can we play a game now? The intrinsic benefits of TGFU, European Journal of Physical and Health Education, 4(2), 57-63.
23. Lavasani, M & etal. (2011). "The Effect of Cooperative Learning on the Social Skills of First Grade Elementary School Girls". Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 15 (2011). pp: 1802–1805.
24. Holt, N.L., Strean, W.B., & Bengoechea, E.G. (2002). Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 21, 162–176.
25. Matson J.L., Rotatori, A, F, & Helsel, W. J. (1983), development of a Rating Scale to Measure Social Skils in children: The matson evaluation of social skills with youngsters (MESSY), behavior research and therapy, 21, 4, 335-340.
26. Yousefi, F., Khayyer, M. (2003). Reliability and validity of Matson's social skills measurement scale and comparison of performance of high school girls and boys in this scale. Special Issue on Educational Science, Volume 18, Number 2. (Persian).
27. Sheppard, J. (2014) Personal and social responsibility through game play: utilizing the teaching games for understanding instructional models. University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Toronto.
28. Nathan S, Haynes J. (2013). A move to an innovative games teaching model: Style E Tactical (SET). Asia Pac J Health Sports Phys Educ 4(2):287–302.
29. Light, R. (2012). Game Sense Pedagogy in Youth Sport: An Applied Ethics Perspective. In S. Harvey and R. Light (Eds.), Ethics in Youth Sport: Policy and Pedagogical Applications (pp. 92-106). London: Routledge.
30. Harvey, S. (2009). A study of interscholastic soccer players perceptions of learning with game sense. Asian Journal of Exercise and Sport Science, 6(1), 1-10.
31. Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., Brock, S., & Babiarz, M. (2001). Teaching and learning basic invasion-game tactics in 4th grade: A descriptive study from situated and constraints theoretical perspectives. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(4), 370–88.
32. Pill, S., & Younie, H. (2015). Game sense training: developing Australian football players. Active and Healthy Magazine, 22(2/3), 59-63.
Charles worth, R. (1994). Designer games. Sports Coach, 17(4), 30-33.
Journal of Sport Management and Motor Behavior
Volume 18, Issue 35
October 2022
Pages 97-81

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics