تأثیر رویکرد آموزشی حس بازی بر تصمیم‌گیری، حمایت و اجرای مهارت‌های بسکتبال در دانش‌آموزان دختر

نوع مقاله : علمی- پژوهشی

نویسندگان

دانشکده علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران .

چکیده

هدف: هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی تأثیر رویکرد آموزشی حس بازی بر تصمیم‌گیری، حمایت و اجرای مهارت‌های بسکتبال در دانش‌آموزان دختر بود.
روش ها: جامعه آماری پژوهش دانش‌آموزان دختر مقطع اول متوسطه شهرستان ارومیه بودند که تعداد چهل نفر از آن‌هایی که قبلاً سابقه بازی بسکتبال نداشتند و از نظر جسمانی سالم بودند با میانگین سنی (3±06/13) به صورت تصادفی در گروه‌های مورد نظر (گروه سنتی و گروه حس بازی، هر گروه بیست نفر) قرار گرفتند. روش پژوهش از نوع پیش‌آزمون و پس-آزمون بود و اطلاعات به صورت میدانی و از طریق آزمون‌های مهارتی بسکتبال ایفرد و ابزار سنجش عملکرد بازی جمع‌آوری شد.
یافته ها: نتایج تحلیل کوواریانس چندمتغیره نشان داد که دانش‌آموزان در یادگیری مهارت‌های پایه به روش سنتی بهتر بوده‌اند اما در مورد مولفه‌های تصمیم‌گیری و حمایت گروه حس بازی به طور معناداری بهتر از گروه سنتی بود.
نتیجه گیری: به طور کلی رویکرد مبتنی بر حس بازی کارآمدی بهتری در توسعه عملکرد بازی نشان داد و یافته‌ها پیشنهاد می‌کند که استفاده از فرآیند پرسش و پاسخ در قالب بازی‌های تعدیل شده روش تمرینی مناسبی برای پیشبرد عملکرد بازی در دانش‌آموزان هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effects of Game Sense Pedagogy on Decision Making, Supporting and Implementing Basketball Skills in Female Students

نویسندگان [English]

  • leily alizadeh
  • hasan mohammadzadeh
Faculty of Sports Sciences, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of game sense pedagogy on decision making, supporting and implementing basketball skills in female students. The statistical population of the study was Urmia secondary school girl students. Methods: Subjects were 40 students (each group= 20 people) who did not already have a history of basketball playing and were physically health with an average age of 13.06±3. AAHPERD basketball skills test and game performance assessment instrument were used to collect data. Results: The results of multivariate covariance analysis showed that students were better at learning of basic skills in the traditional method, but in terms of decision-making and supporting components, the game sense group was significantly better than the traditional group. Conclusion: In general, the game sense approach has shown better performance in game performance development, and the findings suggest that using a questioning process based on a modified game framework is an appropriate training method for improving game performance in students.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • game sense
  • nonlinear pedagogy
  • game strategies
1. Light R. Game sense: Pedagogy for
performance, participation and enjoyment:
Routledge; 2013.
2. Siedentop, D. Introduction to physical
education, fitness, and sport, 2001. 4th edn.
Mayfield Publishing Company, Los Angeles.
3. Lavasani, M & etal. 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. (In
Persian)
4. Chow, J-Y., Davids, K., Button, C.,
Shuttleworth. Renshaw, I., & Araujo, D.
Nonlinear pedagogy: A constraints-led
framework to understanding emergence of
game play and skills. Nonlinear dynamics,
psychology and life sciences, 2006, 10, 71-103.
5.Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Shuttleworth R,
Renshaw I, Araújo D. The role of nonlinear
pedagoy in physical education. Review of
Educational Research. 2007;77(3): 251-78.
6.Renshaw I, Chow JY, Davids K, Hammond J. A
constraints-led perspective to understanding
skill acquisition and game play: A basis for
integration of motor learning theory and
physical education praxis? Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy. 2010;15 (2):117-37.
7. Renshaw I, Chow JY, Davids K, Hammond J. A
constraints-led perspective to understanding
skill acquisition and game play: A basis for
integration of motor learning theory and
physical education praxis? Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy. 2010;15(2):117-37.
8. Ab Rahman, Z., Kamal, A. A., Mohd Nor, M. A.,
& Ab Latif, R. The effectiveness of teaching
games for understanding to promote enjoyment
in teaching games of physical education lesson.
Jurnal Sains Sukan & Pendidikan Jasmani, 2020.
9(1), 23-32.
https://doi.org/10.37134/jsspj.vol9.1.4.
9.Bunker D, Thorpe R. A model for the teaching
of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of
physical education. 1982;18 (1):5-8.
10.Light RL. Game Sense pedagogy in youth
sport: An applied ethics perspective. Ethics in
Youth Sport: Routledge; 2012. p. 106-20.
11.Chen S, Light R. 'I thought I'd hate cricket but
I love it!': Year six students' responses to Games
Sense. 2006.
12.Pill S. Game sense to sport literacy.
Hindmarsh, SA: Australian Council for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation. 2013.
13.Stolz S, Pill S. Making sense of game sense.
Active & Healthy Magazine. 2012;19 (1):5-8.
14.Kirk D. Physical education futures: Routledge;
2009.
15.Evans JR. Elite Rugby Union Coaches;
Interpretation and Use of Game Sense in New
Zealand. Asian Journal of Exercise & Sports
Science. 2012;9 (1).
16.Práxedes A, Moreno A, Sevil J, GarcíaGonzález L, Del Villar F. A preliminary study of
the effects of a comprehensive teaching
program, based on questioning, to improve
tactical actions in young footballers. Perceptual
and motor skills. 2016;122 (3):742-56.
17.Ghari BaD, Mohammad ZH, Ahmadi M. The
Effects of Three Instructional Approaches on
Basketball Game Performance in University
Students. Motor behavior. 2019. (In Persian)
18.Pill S, Younie H. Game sense training:
developing Australian football players. Active &
Healthy Magazine. 2015;22(2/3):59-63.
19.Evans JR, Light RL. Coach development
through collaborative action research: A rugby
coach’s implemention of game sense pedagogy.
Asian Journal of Exercise & Sports Science.
2008;5(1):31-7. 20. Carroll, B. & Loumidis, J.
Children’s perceived competence and
enjoyment in physical education and physical
activity outside school. European Physical
Education Review, 2001.7(1), 24–43.
21.Hadavi F, Farahani A, Izadi A. Measurement,
evaluation and assessment in physical
education2013. (In Persian)
22.Oslin JL, Mitchell SA, Griffin LL. The game
performance assessment instrument (GPAI):
Development and preliminary validation. Journal
of teaching in physical education.
1998;17(2):231-43.
23. Holt NL, Strean WB, Bengoechea EG.
Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and
practice. J TEACH PHYS EDUC. 2002; 21 (2):162–
76.
24.Chatzopoulos D, Drakou A, Kotzamanidou M,
Tsorbatzoudis H. Girls' soccer performance and
motivation: games vs technique approach.
Perceptual and motor skills. 2006;103(2):463-70.
25.Kirk D, MacPhail A. Teaching games for
understanding and situated learning: Rethinking
the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of teaching in
Physical Education. 2002;21(2):177-92.
26.Pritchard T, Hawkins A, Wiegand R, Metzler
JN. Effects of two instructional approaches on
skill development, knowledge, and game
performance. Measurement in Physical
Education and Exercise Science. 2008;12(4):219-
36.
27.Tallir I, Musch E, Valcke M, Lenoir M. Effects
of two instructional approaches for basketball
on decision-making and recognition ability.
International Journal of Sport Psychology.
2005;36(2):107-26.
28.Griffin LL, Brooker R, Patton K. Working
towards legitimacy: two decades of teaching
games for understanding. Physical Education
and Sport Pedagogy. 2005;10(3):213-23.
29.Gray S, Sproule J. Developing pupils’
performance in team invasion games. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2011;16(1):15-
32.