The Effectiveness of the TGFU and SDT Approach on Motor development and achievement Motivation in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Document Type : علمی- پژوهشی

Authors

1 Department of Physical Education, Gorgan, Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran

2 SSRI

Abstract

Purpose: the aim of this study is investigate the Effectiveness of the TGFU and SDT Approach on Motor development and achievement Motivation in Children with ADHD.
Methods: The method of this research is semi-experimental and in terms of the purpose of the research, which was carried out using a pre-test-post-test design. 30 students from 7 to 10 years of elementary school in Gorgan were selected as samples. In the pre-test phase, all participants completed the TGMD-3 motor development test and completed the Progress Motivation Questionnaire. Participants were then randomly assigned to TGFU and SDT groups. The training process was held for 6 weeks and 2 weeks 90 minutes each week. After the end of the intervention, a post-test was performed. Data were analyzed using covariance analysis.
Results: The results showed that there was a significant difference between the two groups of TGFU and SDT in motor growth (P

Keywords


1. Barkley RA. Distinguishing sluggish cognitive
tempo from ADHD in children and adolescents:
executive functioning, impairment, and
comorbidity. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology. 2013; 42(2):161-73 .
2. Gupta R, Kar BR. Development of attentional
processes in ADHD and normal children.
Progress in brain research. 2009; 176:259-76.3. Huang BM, Yu CH, Li ZR. Clinical observation
on acupuncture intervention for children with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal
of Acupuncture and Tuina Science. 2012;
10(5):300-4.
4. Sadolahi A, Ghorbani R, Bakhtiyari J, Salmani
M, Khademi A, Mohammadi N. Prevalence of
attention deficit hyperactivity disorders in first
to third grades primary school students in
Semnan, Iran. koomesh. 2019; 21 (2):292-297.
(Persian).
5. Chronis AM, Chacko A, Fabiano GA, Wymbs
BT, Pelham WE. Enhancements to the behavioral
parent training paradigm for families of children
with ADHD: Review and future directions.
Clinical child and family psychology review.
2004; 7(1):1-27 .
6. Gallahue DL, Ozmun C, Goodway J.
Understanding motor development: Infants,
children, adolescents, adults. Boston. 2012.
7. Payne VG, Isaacs LD. Human motor
development: a lifespan approach. 8th. 2011 .
8. Draper CE, Achmat M, Forbes J, Lambert EV.
Impact of a community-based programmer for
motor development on gross motor skills and
cognitive function in preschool children from
disadvantaged settings. Early child development
and care. 2012; 182(1):137-52 .
9. Foulkes JD, Knowles Z, Fairclough SJ, Stratton
G, O’Dwyer M, Ridgers ND, Foweather L. Effect
of a 6-week active play intervention on
fundamental movement skill competence of
preschool children: A cluster randomized
controlled trial. Perceptual and motor skills.
2017; 124(2):393-412 .
10. 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 .
11. Nathan S. Badminton instructional in
Malaysian schools: a comparative analysis of
TGfU and SDT pedagogical models. Springer Plus.
2016; 5(1):1215 .
12. Nathan, S., Khanna, G. L., & Hashim, A.
(2016). Comparative TGfU Junior Hockey
Coaching Analysis: Effect of TGfU in Game Play,
Knowledge, Cardiovascular Fitness, and Coaches'
Reflection in Malaysia and India. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 87(S1), S78 .
13. Crespo M, Reid MM, and Miley D. Tennis:
Applied examples of a game-based teaching
approach. Strategies. 2004; 17(4):27-30 .
14. Lee MC, Chow JY, Komar J, Tan CW, Button C.
Nonlinear pedagogy: an effective approach to
cater for individual differences in learning a
sports skill. PloS one. 2014; 9(8):e104744 .
15. Tan CW, Chow JY, Davids K. ‘How does TGfU
work? Examining the relationship between
learning design in TGfU and a nonlinear
pedagogy. Physical education and sport
pedagogy. 2012; 17(4):331-48 .
16. Hopper T. Teaching tennis with assessment
‘for’ and ‘as’ learning: A TGfU net/wall example.
Physical and Health Education Journal. 2007;
73(3):22-8 .
17. Stolz S, Pill S. Teaching games and sport for
understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its
relevance in physical education. European
Physical Education Review. 2014; 20(1):36-71 .
18. Butler JI. Curriculum constructions of ability:
enhancing learning through Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum model.
Sport, Education and Society. 2006; 11(3):243-
58 .
19. Butler J, Oslin J, Mitchell S, Griffin L. The Way
Forward for TGfU: Filling the Chasm between
Theory and Practice. Physical & Health Education
Journal. 2008; 74.)1 (
20. Chow JY, Davids KW, Button C, Renshaw I,
Shuttleworth R, Uehara LA. Nonlinear pedagogy: implications for teaching games for
understanding (TGfU). TGfU: simply good
pedagogy: understanding a complex challenge.
2009; 1:131-43.
21. Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Shuttleworth R,
Renshaw I, Araújo D. The role of nonlinear
pedagogy in physical education. Review of
Educational Research. 2007; 77(3):251-78 .
22. Tan CW, Chow JY, Davids K. ‘How does TGfU
work?’ examining the relationship between
learning design in TGfU and a nonlinear
pedagogy. Physical education and sport
pedagogy. 2012; 17(4):331-48 .
23. Nathan S, Haynes J. A move to an innovative
games teaching model: Style E Tactical (SET).
Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical
Education. 2013; 4(3):287-302.
24. Davids KW, Button C, Bennett SJ. Dynamics
of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach.
Human Kinetics; 2008 .
25. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory:
A macro theory of human motivation,
development, and health. Canadian
psychology/Psychologies Canadians. 2008;
49(3):182 .
26. Shamsipour P, Najafian F, Mir F. The Effect of
Gender and Circadian Rhythm on the
Performance of Motor Memory and
Achievement Motivation in Youth. Journal of
Sport Psychology Studies. 2019; 26(4):195-212.
(Persian).
27. Steinmayr R, Spinath B. The importance of
motivation as a predictor of school achievement.
Learning and individual differences. 2009;
19(1):80-90.
28. Minhat N, Jeganathan SN, Salimin N. The
Effects of TGfU, SEM and HTGfU-SEM Towards
Volleyball and Badminton Cognitive Game Play
on Performance Among Form One Students.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal.
2019; 6.)3(
29. Sheppard J. Personal and Social
Responsibility through Game Play: Utilizing the
Teaching Games for Understanding Instructional
Model (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Toronto (Canada)). 2014 .
30. Chang MY, Chow JY, Button C, Tan CW.
Nonlinear pedagogy and its role in encouraging
21st century competencies through physical
education: A Singapore experience. 2017;
37(4):483-499.
31. 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 .
32. Shahaeian A, Shahim S, Bashash H, Yousefi F.
Normalization, factor analysis, and reliability of
short form of Conners' Parent Rating Scale for 6
to 11 years old children in Shiraz city. Cognitive
Study. 2007; 3(3):97-120 .
33. Mohammadi F, Bahram A, Khalaji H GF. The
Validity and Reliability of Test of Gross Motor
Development – 3rd Edition among 3-10 Years
Old Children in Ahvaz. Journal of Jundishapur
Medical Science. 2017; 16(4):379–91. (Persian) .
34. Farsian M, Rezaei N, Panahandeh S.
Correlation between achievement motivation,
emotional intelligence and the foreign language
classroom anxiety in French students of
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. Language
related research. 2014; 6(4): 183-200. (Persian) .
35. ahmadi T, Ghobari Bonab B, Azarnia A. The
Effectiveness of Attribution Retraining on
achievement motivation and attributional style
of Children specific learning disabilities.
Shenakht Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry.
2016; 3 (4):97-110. (Persian).
36. Sayadpour Z, Sayadpour M. The Effect of
Cooperative Learning on Anxiety and Academic Achievement Motivation. Journal of research in
educational systems. 2018; 11(39): 97/112.
(Persian).
37. Yaali R, Teymoori N, Bagheri S. The effect of
Training Method (Linear and Nonlinear) on
Students̓ Participation Motivation in Physical
Education Class. Sport psychology studies.
Article in press .
38. Smith L, Harvey S, Savory L, Fairclough S,
Kozub S, Kerr C. 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.
2015; 21(1):93-113 .
39. Norouzi Seyed Hossieni. E, Norouzi Seyed
Hossieni. R. Effects of TGFU Teaching Method on
Self-Determine Motivation and Learning of
Volleyball Serve in Adolescent Students. Motor
Behavior. Fall 2017; 9(29): 183-98. (Persian) .
40. Gil-Arias A, Harvey S, Cárceles A, Práxedes A,
Del Villar F. Impact of a hybrid TGfU-Sport
Education unit on student motivation in physical
education. PloS one. 2017; 12(6):e0179876.
41. Renshaw I, Oldham AR, Bawden M. Nonlinear
pedagogy underpins intrinsic motivation in
sports coaching. The Open Sports Sciences
Journal. 2012; 5:88-99 .
42. Zhang P, Ward P, Li W, Sutherland S,
Goodway J. Effects of play practice on teaching
table tennis skills. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education. 2012; 31(1):71-85.