Motor Behavior

The Effects of Three Instructional Approaches on Basketball Game Performance in University Students

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Motor Behavior, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Motor Behavior, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Motor Behavior, Islamic Azad University, Urmia Branch, Urmia, Iran

Abstract
The present study investigated the effects of the three instructional approaches including tactical-based (TGFU), the hybrid, and the technique to tactic (traditional) on the university students’ decision-making, skill execution, support and basic techniques learning in Basketball. The study adhered to a quasi-experimental design by employing pre-, mid-, post-, retention and transfer tests to evaluate the participants’ performance over eight weeks. The participants included 45 male students, who were divided into three groups of TGFU (n=15), hybrid (n=15), and the traditional one (n=15). The treatment was designed and implemented during an 18-session practice program. The results demonstrated that TGFU and hybrid groups outperformed the third group in decision-making and support factors, while in terms of Basketball Skills Test, hybrid and traditional groups performed better. The findings suggest that tactic-based models and using a questioning process based on a modified game framework is an appropriate training method for improving game performance in male students and it seems that the progress can be more transferable to the real game situation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Butler JI, Griffin LL. More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally. East Peoria, Illinois: Human Kinetics; 2010. p. vii.
  2. Williams AM, Hodges NJ. Practice, instruction and skill acquisition: Challenging tradition. JSSM. 2005;6:637–50.
  3. Hastie P. Applied benefits of the sport education model. JOPERD. 1998;69(4):24–6.
  4. Pritchard T, Hawkins A, Wiegand R, Metzler J N. Effects of two instructional approaches on skill development, knowledge, and game performance. MPEES. 2008;12:219–36.
  5. Rink JE, French KE, Tjeerdsma BL. Foundations for the learning and instruction of sport and games. JTPE. 1996;15:399–417.
  6. Holt J, Ward P, Wallhead T. The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in young adult soccer players. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2006;11(2):101–18.    
  7. Gray S, Sproule J. Developing pupils’ performance in team invasion games. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2011;16:15–32.                                                                                         
  8. Gray S, Sproule J, Morgan K. Teaching team invasion games and motivational climate. EUR PHYS EDUC REV. 2009;15(1):65–89.
  9. Tallir I, Lenoir M, Valcke M, Musch E. Do alternative instructional approaches result in different game performance learning outcomes? Authentic assessment in varying conditions. INT J SPORT PSYCHOL. 2007;38(3):263–82.
  10. Chatzopoulos D, Drakou A, Kotzamanidou M, Tsorbatzoudis H. Girls’ soccer performance and motivation: Games vs. technique approach. Percept Mot Skills. 2006;103(2):463–70.
  11. Turner A, Martinek T. An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge and game play. RES Q EXERCISE SPORT. 1999;70(3):286–96.
  12. Mesquita I, Farias C, Hastie P. The impact of a hybrid sport education–invasion games competence model soccer unit on students’ decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. EUR PHYS EDUC REV. 2012;18(2):205–19.
  13. Zeatou A, Vernadakis N, Derri V, Bebetsos E, Filipou F. The effect of game for understanding on backhand tennis skill learning and self-efficacy improvement in elementary students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014;152:765-71.
  14. Harvey S, Cushion C, Wegis H, Massa-Gonzalez A. Teaching games for understanding in American high-school soccer: A quantitative data analysis using the game performance assessment instrument. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2010;15(1):29–54.
  15. Miller A. Games centered approaches in teaching children & adolescents: Systematic review of associated student outcomes. J TEACH PHYS EDUC. 2015;34:36-58.
  16. Lee MAh, Ward P. Generalization of tactics in tag rugby from practice to games in middle school physical education. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2009;14(2):189–207.
  17. McMorris T. Teaching games for understanding: Its contribution to the knowledge of skill acquisition from a motor learning perspective. European Journal of Physical Education. 1998;3:65–74.
  18. French K, Werner P, Hussey K, Taylor K, Jones J. The effects of a 6-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. . J TEACH PHYS EDUC. 1996;15(4):439–63.
  19. Nathan S, Haynes J. A move to an innovative games teaching model: Style E tactical (SET). Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport &. Physics Education. 2013;4(3):287–302.
  20. Harvey S, Jarrett K. A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog. 2013;XXX:1-23.
  21. Pra´xedes A, Moreno A, Sevil J, Garcı´a-Gonza´lez L, Villar DF. A preliminary study of the effects of a comprehensive teaching program, based on questioning, to improve tactical actions in young footballers. Percept Mot Skills. 2016;122(3):742–56.
  22. 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.
  23. Hadavi F, Farahani A, Eezadi A. Measurement, deliberation and evaluation in physical education. Tehran: Hatmi; 2013. p. 219-223.
  24. Oslin J, Mitchell S, Griffin L. The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI): development and preliminary validation. J TEACH PHYS EDUC. 1998;17:231-43.
  25. Alison S, Thorpe R. Comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within PE. A skills approach verses a game for understanding approach. BJPE. 1997;28(3):9–13.
  26. Thomas K, Thomas JR. Developing expertise in sport: The relation of knowledge and performance. INT J SPORT PSYCHOL. 1994;25:295-312.
  27. McPherson SL. The development of sport expertise: Mapping the tactical domain. Quest. 1994;46:223– 40.
  28. Raab M, Johnson M. Implicit learning as a means to intuitive decision making in sports. In Plessner H, Betsch T, Betsch C, editors. Intuition in judgment and decision making. London, England: Routledge; 2007. p. 119–134.
Motor Behavior
Volume 11, Issue 35
April 2019
Pages 63-84

  • Receive Date 29 January 2017
  • Revise Date 06 September 2017
  • Accept Date 19 September 2017

Home

Reviewers

Submit Manuscript

Publication Ethics

news

Journal Metrics

Contact Us