رفتار حرکتی

تأثیر روش آموزشی TGFU بر انگیزش خودمختاری و یادگیری سرویس والیبال در دانش‌آموزان نوجوان

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری رفتار حرکتی، دانشگاه ارومیه

2 استادیار مدیریت ورزشی، دانشگاه تربیت‌مدرس

چکیده
هدف از پژوهش حاضر، تعیین اثر مدل TGFU بر انگیزش خودمختاری و یادگیری سرویس والیبال در دانش‌آموزان نوجوان شهر کرمانشاه بود. آزمودنی‌های پژوهش 30 دانش‌آموز دبیرستانی (با میانگین سنی 32/16 سال) شهر کرمانشاه بودند. این پژوهش شامل سه مرحلة پیش‌آزمون، تمرینات به دو شیوۀ TGFU و سنتی و پس‌آزمون (یادداری) بود. تمرینات TGFU نیز شامل آموزش براساس مدل شش‌مرحله‌ای TGFU (با تأکید بر تاکتیک) بود که خود این تمرینات سنتی عبارت بود از: آموزش با تأکید بر مهارت و تکنیک. برای تحلیل داده‌ها از آمار توصیفی، روش‌های آماری آزمون تحلیل واریانس مرکب 2*2 و آزمون تعقیبی بونفرونی استفاده گشت. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که مقادیر انگیزش خودمختاری برای گروه TGFU نسبت به گروه سنتی بیشتر است. علاوه‌براین، امتیازات سرویس استاندارد والیبال برای گروه TGFU و سنتی در مرحلة پس‌آزمون نسبت به پیش‌آزمون افزایش را نشان می‌دهد؛ اما این افزایش در گروه TGFU بیشتر می‌باشد. به‌طورکلی، نتایج پژوهش مدل TGFU را به‌عنوان مدلی بهتر درمقایسه با مدل تکنیکی بر پایۀ مهارت برای آموزش و مربی‌گری پیشنهاد می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Effects of TGFU Teaching Method on Self-Determine Motivation and Learning of Volleyball Serve in Adolescent Students

نویسندگان English

  • Ebrahim Norouzi Seyed Hoseini 1
  • Rasoul Norouzi Seyed Hossieni 2
1 Ph.D. Student of Motor Behavior, Urmia University
2 Assistant Professor of Sport Management, Tarbiat Modares University
چکیده English

The aim of this study was investigation the effect of TGFU model on self-determine motivation and learning of Volleyball serve in adolescent students of Kermanshah city. The subjects were 30 male high school student of Kermanshah city with the average age of 16.32. The research was conducted in three phases, include: Pre-test, training in TGFU and traditional method and posttest (retention). TGFU training was consisted of a TGFU Six-step model based education, with an emphasis on tactic. Moreover, traditional training was including training with an emphasis on the skills and techniques. The descriptive statistics and statistical procedures of Mixed ANOVA 2*2 and Bonferroni post-hoc were utilized to analyze data. Results of independent t-test indicate that the amount of self-determine motivation for TGFU group was higher than traditional group. In addition, standard volleyball service points for TGFU group and traditional group in the pre-test to post-test were enhanced, but this increase was higher in the TGFU group. The results of this study, suggests that TGFU model as a better model compared to the technical model based on skills, for educating and coaching.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

  • Adolescent Students
  • TGFU
  • Traditional Training
  • Motivation
  • Motor performance
  1. Strean W B, Bengoechea E G. Beyond technical vs. tactical: Extending the games teaching debate. Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport. 2003; 181-8.
  2. 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.
  3. Butler J, Griffin L. More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally. Human Kinetics; 2010.
  4. Bunker D, Thorpe R. A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education. 1982; 18(1): 5-8.
  5. 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.
  6. Hopper T. Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2002; 73(7): 44-8.
  7. Crespo M, Reid M M, Miley D. Tennis: Applied examples of a game-based teaching approach. Strategies. 2004; 17(4): 27-30.
  8. 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.
  9. Nathan S, Haynes J. A move to an innovative game teaching model: Style E Tactical (SET). Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education. 2013; 4(3): 287-302.
  10. Holt N L, Strean W B, Bengoechea E G. Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2002; 21(2): 162-76.
  11. Gréhaigne J F, Caty D, Godbout P. Modelling ball circulation in invasion team sports: A way to promote learning games through understanding. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2010; 15(3): 257-70.
  12. Davids K W, Button C, Bennett S J. Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Human Kinetics; 2008.
  13. Anshel MH. Sport psychology: From theory to practice. Pearson Higher Ed; 2011 Dec 22.
  14. Deci E L, Ryan R M. Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. Handbook of Self-Determination Research; 2002. P. 3.
  15. Oslin J L, Mitchell S A, Griffin L L. The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 1998; 17(2): 231-43.
  16. Sanmuga N, Hashim A, Ong K B, Shariff A R, Madon M S, Rasyhid N A. Effect of teaching games fof understanding in 5 versus 5 mini game play, cardiovascular fitness, leg power and 30m running speed among Malaysian school elite palyers. Bristish Journal of Arts and Sosial Science. 2013; 11(2).
  17. Ishee J H. Are physical education classes encouraging students to be physically active? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2004; 75(2): 6.
  18. Wrisberg C A. Levels of performance skill. Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology; 1993. P. 61-72.
  19. Griffin L, Brooker R, Patton K. Working towards legitimacy: Two decades of teaching games for understanding. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2005; 10(3): 213-23.
  20. Vallerand R J, Losier G F. An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 1999; 11(1): 142-69.
  21. French K E, Rink J E, Rikard L, Mays A, Lynn S, Werner P. The effects of practice progressions on learning two volleyball skills. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 1991; 10(3): 261-74.
  22. 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.
  23. Zimmerman B J. Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist. 1990; 25(1): 3-17.
  24. Straka G A. Conceptions of self-directed learning: Theoretical and conceptual considerations. LOS, Learning Organized Self-Directed Researchgroup. Waxmann, Verlag GmbH, Postfach 8603, D-48046 Munster, Germany; 2000.
  25. Nathan S. Badminton instructional in Malaysian schools: A comparative analysis of TGfU and SDT pedagogical models. Springer Plus. 2016; 5(1): 1215.
  26. Blomqvist M, Luhtanen P, Laakso L L. Comparison of two types of instruction in badminton. European Journal of Physical Education. 2001; 6(2): 139-55.
  27. 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.
رفتار حرکتی
دوره 9، شماره 29
پاییز 1396
آبان 1396
صفحه 183-198

  • تاریخ دریافت 24 خرداد 1396
  • تاریخ بازنگری 10 مرداد 1396
  • تاریخ پذیرش 22 مرداد 1396

صفحه اصلی

داوران

ارسال مقاله

اصول اخلاقی

اخبار و اعلانات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

تماس با ما