No abstract

Teaching races for understanding can be used in sailing to improve students' capacity to reflect and connect theoretical knowledge with their motor performance in the race.

No abstract

According to the theory of practice architecture, every practice enacted in classrooms is a result of interaction between social, physical and spatial elements. In relation, from a practicereferenced perspective, it is necessary to know which teaching-learning implementation features could help teachers/coaches/researchers to assemble Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) interventions in relation to the institutional environment. Purpose: This review aimed to explore from a practice-referenced perspective how TGfU researchers reported their interventions based on the teaching-learning implementation features (intervention design as a function of the context, intervention length, lesson content, basic lesson elements, lesson alignment, teacher/coach experience with the approach, and lesson validation and treatment verification) and their association with learners' outcomes. Results: We found 20 studies that included some of the teaching-learning implementation features, but none of the studies included all of these features.We also found that studies of TGfU measured and reported learners' outcomes in a variety of ways. This creates difficulties for drawing conclusions about the relationships between the presence of teaching-learning implementation features and student learning outcomes. Conclusion: Further TGfU interventions should be planned to consider the following: (a) that lessons need to be designed as a function of the context; (b) the number of intervention lessons, their duration and the duration of each lesson task; (c) the concrete tactical and technique contents and goals per lesson; (d) the modified games, questions and achievable challenges as basic lesson elements; (e) the alignment between the basic lesson elements and the structure of lessons, based on the goals of each lesson; (f) that teachers/coaches need to have previous SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF TGfU 2 experience in TGfU and be trained on the specific study purpose; (g) that lessons should be validated before implementation and verified during intervention; (h) researchers should regulate the ways in which learners' outcomes are measured and reported within TGfU studies.

Purpose:To determine whether a TGfU intervention improved participants’ decision-making, skill execution, game performance, game involvement, game knowledge, enjoyment, perceived competence, and intention to continue practicing sailing.Method:Participants were 19 sailors (age: M = 8.44, SD = 1.24 years old). This study followed a mixed-methods approach. The children participated in 12 TGfU intervention sessions and 2 prepost assessment sessions. We designed and validated the sessions, and the coach was trained in TGfU. Data were collected using GPAI during an Olympic triangle race, an ad hoc knowledge questionnaire, two psychological scales, and interviews of children and coach.Results:Statistically significant improvements were found in decision-making, Δ = 3.97, skill execution, Δ = .43, game performance, Δ = 5.34, and game involvement, Δ = 7.89.Discussion/Conclusion:The results support TGfU may serve to sail training in youth sport. Sailing coaches now have a teaching-learning framework that determines “what” and “how” the tasks must be, the feedback, and participant and coach behavior.

The purpose of the present work was to explore whether fourth-grade physical education students improved their game performance, knowledge and psychosocial variables with Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) to a greater extent after an eight-lesson period in comparison to a 14-lesson period. The study followed a mixed-methods approach in which the design consisted of a first assessment, a second assessment after Lesson 9 (eight-lesson period) and a third assessment after Lesson 16 (14-lesson period). A TGfU floorball intervention was carried out between assessments. The participants (n = 40) were in their fourth year of elementary education. According to students’ background and setting, we decided to implement three broad and interrelated strategies to enact the intervention built on the TGfU pedagogical features. Data were collected through Game Performance Assessment Instrument, knowledge questionnaire, enjoyment, perceived competence and intention to be physically active scales and semi-structured interviews. Quantitatively, Friedman’s χ2 was used to explore differences in the variables and Wilcoxon’s Z post-hoc comparisons were performed to determine: (a) first–second and first–third assessment differences; and (b) second–third assessment differences. Qualitatively, data were open and axial coded line-by-line and incident-to-incident in sub-themes. The quantitative results show no significant differences between the two periods (p > 0.05). However, there were improvements after both periods compared with the first assessment (p < 0.05). The qualitative information supported that the pedagogical strategies implemented could be key to explain the similarities between the two practice volumes. In conclusion, the amount of practice should not be considered as the only variable in the design of interventions with TGfU.

Different authors have reported on the influence of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) intervention on game performance and psychosocial variables. This review aimed: (a) to explore the TGfU experimental studies; (b) to compare the effects of the TGfU vs. technical approach pedagogy on game performance; and (c) to determine the effect of the TGfU approach on game performance and psychosocial variables (motivational climate, task orientation, perceived competence and enjoyment). This systematic review with meta-analysis adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four databases (PubMed, WOS, EBSCO and Google scholar metasearch) were searched. Study quality was measured with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score. Thirteen studies were included. A pooled analysis of all interventions demonstrated a large significant improvement in decision making for TGfU when compared to technical approach pedagogy (SMD = 5.93, I2 = 98%; CI (95%) = 2.15–9.71; p = 0.004) and no differences between groups for skill execution (SMD = 1.70; I2 = 8%; CI (95%) = −5.34–8.73; p = 0.60). The effect of a TGfU intervention on game performance is strong (decision making, execution skills and tactical skills). Moderate evidence is reported by psychosocial variables (motivational climate, task orientation, perception of motivation and achievement in physical education). In addition, it is unclear its effect on perceived competence, enjoyment, knowledge of the game and intention to be physically active. TGfU intervention could be an appropriate approach for males and females in the context of education or sport. There is a need for a greater number of studies.

No abstract