Effect of Teaching Races for Understanding in Youth Sailing on Performance, Knowledge, and Adherence

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.

Effects of Teaching Games on Decision Making and Skill Execution: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Of these, 180 were distributed in the technical group (TEG) and 177 were allocated the tactical group Table 1 shows the risk of bias of the six selected articles according to the PEDro scale. Scores varied from six to seven [22,27,28] and to eight [23][24][25]29]. Regarding the quality of evidence, the GRADE guidelines have been followed.…”

“…As can be seen in Figure 2, the meta-analysis results showed that tactical intervention resulted in improvement compared with the comparison groups in almost every article (see Figure 2) and was significant in five studies [22][23][24]27,29]. However, the study by Nathan [25] reported no significant difference between TEG and TAG models in terms of skill execution or decision making.…”

“…On the other hand, the Morales-Belando and Arias-Estero's study [24] lasted 2 weeks, with 11 lessons of 80 min. "Technical group's lessons followed the traditional segments in sailing: (a) The coach taught the knowledge out of the water; (b) the sailors then applied such knowledge to a situation in which they sought to improve skill execution; and (c) finally, the participants practiced in a race" [24] (p. 4). The traditional approach only focused on how to act, so the technical content was taught first and the tasks were stripped of a real race context and the coach told the sailors what they must do.…”

“…The traditional approach only focused on how to act, so the technical content was taught first and the tasks were stripped of a real race context and the coach told the sailors what they must do. Moreover, the learners had a passive role, carried out the coach's orders, and tried to imitate a perfect technical approach, whereas the coach told them and showed them what and how to do the tasks, while using technically perfect actions [24]. On the other hand, "the TRfU group's lessons were created following the lesson segments: (a) The teacher set up the "race form" so that participants would work on the tactical aspect similar to a real race; (b) the teacher conducted "teaching for understanding" so that the children could reflect on what they had to do and why; (c) the teacher conducted "drills for skill" development so that participants could improve their skill execution; (d) the class returned to the "race form" so that the participants could perform a lesson segment very similar to the initial lesson segment; and (e) the teacher conducted a "review and closure" so that participants could reflect on the integration and understanding of skill execution and decision making" [24] (p. 4).…”

“…The heterogeneity level was large (I 2 = 99%) and the P-value of the Cochran Q-test was <0.01. Figure 3 shows that two of the six articles reported significant improvements in skill execution relative to the baseline, caused by the tactical intervention [24,27]. One article was removed because it did not evaluate the skill execution [23].…”