Motor Behavior

Comparing the effectiveness of linear and non-linear training on metacognitive knowledge and Learning soccer dribbling skills

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Sciences - Urmia University

2 Associate Professor in Motor Behavior/ Faculty of sport sciences/ Department of Motor Behavior and Sport Management/ Urmia University , Urmia, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Education, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract
In recent studies of physical education teaching and learning, cognitive and metacognitive functions have been studied in addition to physical factors. However, the complexity of teaching methods and individual differences has created significant challenges for experts in teaching motor and cognitive skills. The purpose of the research was to compare the effectiveness of linear and non-linear training on metacognitive knowledge and learning soccer dribbling skills of children. The current research was semi-experimental with two experimental groups and three measurement times. The statistical population was 9-11-year-old male students of Andimshek city, and 72 children were selected as a sample using the available purposeful sampling method, and they were randomly divided into two groups of 36 people, linear pedagogy with an average age of 10.34±0.81 and non-linear pedagogy with an average age of 10.08±0.73. Yeagley dribble skills test and Metacognitive Behavior Questionnaire of Papaiano et al (2012) were used to measure the measurements. Data were analyzed by Anova with repeated measure and Independent t test. The intra-group results showed that both linear and non-linear training groups improved soccer skills, declrative knowledge, procedural, conditionals and metacognitive knowledge in general (P≤0.05). The intergroup results showed that the effectiveness of non-linear training was higher than linear training (P≤0.05). Interventions based on non-linear pedagogy compared to linear pedagogy cause more improvement and effectiveness in children's metacognitive knowledge and soccer dribbling skills. Therefore, teachers and trainers are suggested to improve children's motor and metacognitive skills use pedagogy based on non-linear principles instead of using traditional usage pedagogy.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Bergmann F, Gray R, Wachsmuth S, Höner O. Perceptual-motor and perceptual-cognitive skill acquisition in soccer: A systematic review on the influence of practice design and coaching behavior. Front Psychol. 2021; 12: 772201.
  2. Murr D, Feichtinger P, Larkin P, O’Connor D, Höner O. Psychological talent predictors in youth soccer: A systematic review of the prognostic relevance of psychomotor, perceptual-cognitive and personality-related factors. PloS one. 2018; 13(10): e0205337.
  3. Verburgh L, Scherder EJ, van Lange PA, Oosterlaan J. Executive functioning in highly talented soccer players. PloS one. 2014; 9(3): e91254.
  4. Flavell JH. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. The nature of intelligence. 1976.
  5. MacIntyre T, Moran A. Metacognition and motor control: How do we think about movement in sport? In J. L. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.), Expert performance in sports: Advances in research on sport expertise (pp. 243-256). Champaign, IL: J. Hum. Kinet. 2010.
  6. Flavell JH. Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp.21 -29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1987.
  7. Adler I, Zion M, Mevarech, ZR. The effect of explicit environmentally oriented metacognitive guidance and peer collaboration on students’ expressions of environmental literacy. JRST. 2016; 53(4): 620-663.
  8. Perry B. Metacognitive awareness: Impact of a metacognitive intervention in a pre-nursing course (Ph.D. thesis). LSU, USA. 2013.
  9. Berge T, Van Hezewijk R. Procedural and Declarative Knowledge. An Evolutionary Perspective. Theory Psychol. 1999; 9: 605–624.
  10. Fenstermacher GD. The knower and known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Rev. Res. Teach. 1994; 20: 3–56.
  11. Star JR. Reconceptualizing Procedural Knowledge. J. Res. Math. Educ. 2005; 36: 404-411.
  12. Saks K, Ilves H, Noppel A. The Impact of Procedural Knowledge on the Formation of Declarative Knowledge: How Accomplishing Activities Designed for Developing Learning Skills Impacts Teachers’ Knowledge of Learning Skills. Education Sciences. 2021; 11(10): 598.
  13. Anderson JR. Rules of the Mind; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc: Hillside, NJ, USA. 1993.
  14. Schiefelbein E, McGinn NF. The Process of Learning. In Learning to Educate. Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 2017; 25–53.
  15. Schraw, G. Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. Hartman (Ed.), Metacognition in Learning and Instruction (pp. 3-16). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2002.
  16. Panadero E. A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six models and four directions for research. Front Psychol. 2017; 8, 422.
  17. Stephanou G, Mpiontini M. Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in self-regulatory learning style, and in its effects on performance expectation and subsequent performance across diverse school subjects. J. Psychol. 2017; 8: 1941-1975.
  18. Lidor R, Arnon M, Bronstein A. The effectiveness of a learning (cognitive) strategy on free-throw performances in basketball. ARCAA. 1999; 14: 59–72.
  19. Práxedes A, Del Villar Álvarez F, Moreno A, Gil-Arias A, Davids K. Effects of a nonlinear pedagogy intervention programme on the emergent tactical behaviors of youth footballers. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2019; 24(4): 332-43.
  20. Perry J, Lundie D, Golder G. Metacognition in schools: What does the literature suggest about the effectiveness of teaching metacognition in schools? Educ. Rev. 2018; 71(4): 483-500.
  21. Chatzipanteli A, Digelidis N, Karatzoglidis C, Dean R. Promoting students’ metacognitive behavior in physical education through TGFU. Am. J. Educ. Res. 2015; 1(2): 28-36.
  22. Larkin S. Metacognition in young children. New York: Routledge; 2010.
  23. Proust J. Metacognition and metarepresentation: Is a self-directed theory of mind a precondition for metacognition? Synthese. 2007;159:271–295.
  24. Koriat A. Metacognition and consciousness. In: Zelazo PD, Moscovitch M, Thompson E, eds. Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness. Cambridge University Press; 2007.
  25. Arango-Muñoz S. Two levels of metacognition. Philosophia. 2011;39:71–82. Scharfen HE, Memmert D. Cognitive training in elite soccer players: evidence of narrow, but not broad transfer to visual and executive function. Ger. J. Exerc. Sport Res. 2021; 51(2): 135-45.
  26. Chow JY, Komar J, Seifert L. The role of nonlinear pedagogy in supporting the design of modified games in junior sports. Front Psychol. 2021; 12: 744-814.
  27. Bernstein N. The co-ordination and regulation of movements. London: Pergamon press; 1967.
  28. Gibson J. The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1979.
  29. Chow J, Davids K, Button C, Renshaw I. Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition – an introduction. Oxon: Routledge; 2016.
  30. Orangi BM, Yaali R, Bahram A, van der Kamp J, Aghdasi MT. The effects of linear, nonlinear, and differential motor learning methods on the emergence of creative action in individual soccer players. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2021; 56: 102009.
  31. Vago DR, Silbersweig DA. Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART): a framework for understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness. Fnhum. 2012; 6: 296.
  32. Lidor R, Ziv G, Arnon M, Falk B. Nonlinear pedagogy: an effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning a sports skill. J. Sports Sci. 2013; 31 (4), 424-433.
  33. Ziv G, Lidor R. Vertical jump in female and male basketball players: a review of observational and experimental studies. J Sci Med Sport. 2010; 13(3): 332-339.
  34. Chatzipanteli Α, Digelidis Ν, Papaioannou GΑS. Self-regulation, motivation and teaching styles in physical education classes: An intervention study. J Teach Phys Educ. 2015;34(2):333–344.
  35. Griffin L, Mitchell S, Oslin J. Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1997.
  36. Turner AP, Martinek TJ. A Comparative Analysis of Two Models for Teaching Games: Technique Approach and Game-Centered (Tactical Focus) Approach. Int. j. phys. educ. fit. 1992; 29: 15-31.
  37. Popelka J, Pavlovic R. A comparison of different teaching approaches and their impact on the level of theoretical knowledge of volleyball among 13-14 year old pupils. Sport SPA. 2015: 12(1): 5-9.
  38. Tarshizi S, Shahbazi M, Darabi A. The effect of a rich home environment on the speed of progress in learning football dribbling in boys aged 6 to 13. Journal of Motor Learning and Movement. 2018;10(2):159-71. (Persian).
  39. Hamedi S, Abdoli B, Farsi A. The effect of observational learning on promoting metacognitive behavior of students. Research in Sports Training. 2018;6(15):17-30. (Persian).
  40. Serrano J, Shahidian Sh, sampaio J, Leite N. The Importance of Sports Performance Factors and Training Contents from the Perspective of Futsal Coaches. J. Hum. Kinet. 2013; 38: 151-160.
  41. Olosová G, Zapletalová L. Immediate and retention effects of teaching games for understanding approach on basketball knowledge. AFEPUC. 2015;55(1):39–45.
  42. Stephanou G, Karamountzos D. Enhancing Students’ Metacognitive Knowledge, Metacognitive Regulation and Performance in Physical Education via TGFU. Psychol. Res. Behav. 2020; 8 (1): 1-10.
  43. Dorak F, Yildiz L, Canpolat AM, Yüzbasioglu Y, Vurgun N. A Comparison of the Tactical Game Approach and the Direct Teaching Models in the Teaching of Handball: Cognitive-Psychomotor Field and Game Performance. World J. Educ. 2018; 8(3), 76-85.
  44. Chatzipanteli A, Digelidis N, Karatzoglidis C, Dean R. A tactical-game approach and enhancement of metacognitive behavior in elementary school students. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2016; 21(2): 169-84.
  45. Breed R, Spittle M. Developing Game Sense through Tactical Learning – A Resource for Teachers and Coaches. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. 2011.
  46. Zohar A, Ben-Ari G. Teachers’ knowledge and professional development for metacognitive instruction in the context of higher order thinking. Metacognition and Learning. 2022;17(3):855–895.
  47. Tay LY, Chong SK, Ho CF, Aiyoob TBM. A review of metacognition: Implications for teaching and learning. 2020.
  48. Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Renshaw I. Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction. Routledge; 2021.
  49. Kirk D, MacPhail, A. Teaching Games for Understanding and Situated Learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model. J Teach Phys Educ. 2002; 21 (2): 177–192.
  50. Iskala T, Vauras M, Lehtinen E. Socially-Shared Metacognition in Peer Learning. Hell. J. Psychol. 2004; 1 (2): 147 –178.
  51. MacPhail A, Kirk D, Griffin L. Throwing and Catching as Relational Skills in Game Play: Situated Learning in a Modified Game Unit. J Teach Phys Educ. 2008; 27 (1): 100 –115.
  52. 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. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2010; 15 (2): 1–21.
  53. Alizade L, Mohammadzadeh H. The role of task constraints manipulation on learning of skills and strategies of basketball by nonlinear pedagogy (TGFU). Motor behavior. 2020; 11(38): 115-28. (Persian)
  54. Ghorbani Marzoni M, Bahram A, Ghadiri F, Yaali R. The comparison of effectiveness linear and nonlinear pedagogy on manipulation motor skills performance of children. Motor behavior. 2019; 13 (45): 91-112. (Persian).
  55. Crotti M, Rudd JR, Roberts S, Boddy LM, Fitton Davies K, O’Callaghan L, Utesch T, Foweather L. Effect of Linear and Nonlinear Pedagogy Physical Education Interventions on Children’s Physical Activity: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (SAMPLE-PE). Children. 2021;8(1):49.
  56. Tan C, Chow JY, Davids K. How Does TGfU Work? Examining the Relationship between Learning Design in TGfU and a Nonlinear Pedagogy. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2012; 17 (4): 331–348.
  57. Davids K, Güllich A, Shuttleworth R, Araújo D. Understanding Environmental and Task Constraints on Talent Development. In Routledge Handbook of Talent Identification and Development in Sport, edited by J. Baker, S. Cobley, J. Schorer, and N. Wattie. Abingdon: Routledge. 2017; 192–206.
  58. Ric A, Hristovski R, Torrents C. Can Joker Players Favor the Exploratory Behaviour in Football Small-Sided and Conditioned Games? J. Phys. Educ. Sport. 2015; 4 (2): 35–39.

 

Motor Behavior
Volume 15, Issue 54
December 2024
Pages 97-118

  • Receive Date 30 June 2023
  • Revise Date 22 February 2024
  • Accept Date 02 March 2024

Home

Reviewers

Submit Manuscript

Publication Ethics

news

Journal Metrics

Contact Us