Motor Behavior

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Magazine fees received

Guide for Authors

forms

Peer Review Process

Outcomes of Linear and Non-Linear Pedagogy in Learning Sport and Motor Skills: A Systematic Review

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Motor Behavior, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Imam Hossein University, Tehran, Iran

3 Department of Motor Behavior, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to review the studies conducted in Iran on the learning outcomes of motor and sports skills based on linear and non-linear pedagogy. A systematic review method based on the 2020 edition of the PRISMA statement was adopted for the qualitative synthesis of the literature. The search was conducted using 26 terms from three information sources (Iranian Scientific Journals System, Noor Specialized Journals Database, and Google Scholar) from 2000 to 2022. A total of 2086 records were obtained in the initial search. After assessing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 26 eligible articles were included in this review. In total, 88% of the studies were conducted in the last five years, in which 1008 individuals participated (41% male). Most of the studies have been conducted in the field of physical education in schools (58%) focused on the instruction of nine types of motor and sport skills and examined physical (80%), cognitive (19%), and affective (42%) outcomes. Except for a few inconsistent studies, in most of the studies, non-linear pedagogies such as student-centered approach, sport education model, cooperative learning, constraint-led approach, and game-centered approaches (i.e., teaching games for understanding, tactical game approach, game sense, play practice, situated game teaching) were more effective in creating positive learning outcomes than linear pedagogies. Based on the findings of this systematic review, methodological considerations and future directions for research on the pedagogy of motor and sports skills are discussed.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References
  1. Dyson B, Griffin LL, Hastie P. Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest. 2004;56(2):226-40.
  2. Hastie P, Mesquita I. Sport-based Physical Education. In: Ennis C, editor. Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. London: Routledge; 2016. p. 367-79.
  3. Bessa C. The development of personal and social skills within traditional teaching and sport education: a study with pre-service teachers in physical education [dissertation]. Porto, Portuguese: University of Porto; 2021.
  4. Bailey R, Armour K, Kirk D, Jess M, Pickup I, Sandford R, Education BP. The educational benefits claimed for physical education and school sport: An academic review. Res Pap Educ. 2009;24(1):1-27.
  5. Casey A, Goodyear VA. Can cooperative learning achieve the four learning outcomes of physical education? A review of literature. Quest. 2015;67(1):56-72.
  6. Harvey S, Jarrett K. A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2014;19(3):278-300.
  7. Oslin J, Mitchell S. Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In: Kirk D, MacDonald D, O’Sullivan M, editors, The handbook of physical education. London: Sage; 2006. p. 627-51.
  8. Iran Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Council for Development and Planning in Higher Education. Curriculum in instruction of physical education; 2022. Available from: https://cfu.ac.ir/fa/attach/610233 (Persian)
  9. Metzler M. Instructional Models for Physical Education. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge; 2017.
  10. Mosston M, Ashworth S. Teaching physical education. 1st online ed. Jupiter, Florida: Spectrum Institute for Teaching and Learning; 2008.
  11. Rosenshine BV. Academic engaged time, content covered, and direct instruction. J Educ. 1978;160(3):38–66.
  12. Ennis C. What goes around comes around ... or does it? Disrupting the cycle of traditional, sport-based physical education. Kinesiology Review. 2014;3(1):63-70.
  13. Siedentop D, Hastie P, Mars HVD. Complete Guide to Sport Education. 3rd ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2019.
  14. Vygotsky L, Cole M, Jolm-Steiner V, Scribner S, Souberman E. Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. London: Harvard University Press; 1978.
  15. Ha P. The politics of naming: Critiquing “learner-centred” and “teacher as facilitator” in English language and humanities classrooms. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. 2014;42(4):
    392-405.
  16. Hattie J. Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge; 2012.
  17. Chen W, Burry-Stock JA, Rovegno I. Self-evaluation of expertise in teaching elementary physical education from constructivist perspectives. J Pers Eval Educ. 2000;14(1):25-45.
  18. Chow J, Renshaw I, Button C, Davids K, Keat C. Effective learning design for the individual: A nonlinear pedagogical approach in physical education. In: Butler AO, editor. Complexity thinking in physical education: Reframing curriculum, pedagogy and research. London: Routledge; 2012. p. 121–34.
  19. Siedentop D. Sport education: Quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1994.
  20. Davids K, Chow J-Y, Shuttleworth R. A constraints-based framework for nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand. 2005;38(1):17-29.
  21. Davids K, Button C, Bennett S. Dynamics of skill acquisition: A constraints-led approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2008.
  22. Dyson B, Casey A. Cooperative learning in physical education and physical activity: A practical introduction. London: Routledge; 2016.
  23. Hellison D. Teaching personal and social responsibility through physical activity. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2011.
  24. Bunker D, Thorpe R. A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education. 1982;18(1):5-8.
  25. Mitchell S, Oslin J, Griffin L. Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach. 3rd ed. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2013.
  26. den Duyn N. Game sense: Developing thinking players’ workbook. Canberra: Australian Sports Commission; 1997.
  27. Launder AG. Play practice: The games approach to teaching and coaching sport. 2nd ed. Adelaide: Human Kinetics; 2001.
  28. Tan SKS, Wright SC, McNeill MC, Fry JM, Tan CWK. Implementating the games concept approach in Singapore schools: A preliminary report. REACT. 2002;21(1):77-84.
  29. Li W, Xie X, Li H. Situated game teaching through set plays: A curricular model to teaching sports in physical education. J Teach Phys Educ. 2018;37(4):352-62.
  30. Musch E, Mertens B, Timmers E, Graça A, Meertens T, Taborsky F, Remy C, Multael M, Vonderlynck V, Clercq DD. An innovative didactical invasion games model to teach basketball and handball. Paper presented at: The 7th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science; 2002; Athens, Greece.
  31. Mesquita I, Graça A, Gomes AR, Cruz C. Examining the impact of a step game approach to teaching volleyball on student tactical decision making and skill execution during game play. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 2005;48(6):469-92.
  32. 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.
  33. Nathan S. Style E Tactical Pedagogical Model. In: Llevot-Calvet N, Bernad-Cavero O, editors. Advanced learning and teaching environments: Innovation, contents and methods. London: IntechOpen; 2018. p. 223-242.
  34. González-Víllora S, Evangelio C, Sierra-Díaz J, Fernández-Río J. Hybridizing pedagogical models: A systematic review. Eur Phy Educ Rev. 2019;25(4):1056-74.
  35. Silva R, Farias C, Ramos A, Mesquita I. Implementation of game-centered approaches in physical education: A systematic review. J Physic Educ Sport. 2021;21:3246-59.
  36. Miller A. Games centered approaches in teaching children and adolescents: Systematic review of associated student outcomes. J Teach Phys Educ. 2015;34(1):36-58.
  37. Morales-Belando MT, Kirk D, Arias-Estero JL. A systematic review of teaching games for understanding intervention studies from a practice-referenced perspective. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2021 Oct 29:1-12.
  38. Abad Robles MT, Collado-Mateo D, Fernández-Espínola C, Castillo Viera E, Giménez Fuentes-Guerra FJ. Effects of teaching games on decision making and skill execution: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(2):505..
  39. Barba-Martín RA, Bores-García D, Hortigüela-Alcalá D, González-Calvo G.  The application of the teaching games for understanding in physical education: Systematic review of the last six years. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(9):3330.
  40. Bessa C, Hastie P, Araújo R, Mesquita I. what do we know about the development of personal and social skills within the sport education model: A Systematic Review. J Sports Sci Med. 2019;18(4):812-29.
  41. Bessa C, Hastie P, Ramos A, Mesquita I. What actually differs between traditional teaching and sport education in students' learning outcomes? A critical systematic review. J Sports Sci Med. 2021;20(1):110-25.
  42. Tendinha R, Alves MD, Freitas T, Appleton G, Gonçalves L, Ihle A, Gouveia ÉR, Marques A. Impact of sports education model in physical education on students’ motivation: A systematic review. Children. 2021;8(7):588.
  43. Chu TL, Zhang T. Motivational processes in sport education programs among high school students: A systematic review. Eur Phy Educ Rev. 2018;24(3):372-94.
  44. Hastie PA, de Ojeda DM, Luquin AC. A review of research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2011;16(2):103-32.
  45. Pozo P, Grao-Cruces A, Pérez-Ordás R. Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical education: A systematic review. Eur Phy Educ Rev. 2018;24(1):56-75.
  46. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D.  The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372: n71.
  47. Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S.  PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Nov 21;14:579.
  48. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
  49. Ebrahimi Tavakolian M, Mohammadi Orangi B, Ghadiri F, Mohammad Nejad M. The effect of nonlinear pedagogy on motor proficiency and self-esteem of hyperactive obese girls. Journal of Fundamentals of Mental Health. 2020;22(3):185-93. (In Persian)
  50. Ahmadi G, Elahi Panah F. The effect of linear and nonlinear training on the performance of selected basic motor skills in female students. Journal of Motor and Behavioral Sciences. 2021;4(2):143-50. (In Persian)
  51. Beik S, Dehghanizadeh J. The effect of game-based pedagogy on performance, decision making and meta-cognitive behavior: Play practice approach. Motor Behavior. 2021;13(44):17-42. (In Persian)
  52. Parvinpour S, Roohi M, Rad F. Comparison of dyad training method with cooperative and competitive approach in the learning of Basketball Free Throw. Research in Sport Management and Motor Behavior. 2019;9(17):65-73. (In Persian)
  53. Torabi F, Momtazi M. Comparison of the effect of linear and non-linear training on the coordination pattern of drop forehand badminton skills in adolescent girls. Research in School and Virtual Learning. 2022;9(3):53-62. (In Persian)
  54. Dana A, Shams A. The effectiveness of the TGFU and SDT approach on motor development and achievement motivation in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Sports Psychology. 2021;5(2):71-85. (In Persian)
  55. Daneshyar E, Mohammadzadeh H. Comparison of tactical knowledge and situational interest in traditional teaching and game-based methods. Motor Behavior. 2021;13(43):123-50. (In Persian)
  56. Davoodi M, Yaali R, Ghadiri F, Bahram A. The effect of TGFU, SE, combination (TGFU+SE) and linear training on children's creativity in futsal. Journal of Sports and Motor Development and Learning. 2021;13(3):293-311. (In Persian)
  57. Rezvaniasl R, Namazizadeh M, Vaez Mosavi MK. Effect comparison of two instruction models on learning of basketball skills in competition condition. Psychological Methods and Models. 2018;9(32):161-80. (In Persian)
  58. Sahraeian I, Vaez Mousavi MK, Khabiri M. The effects of cooperative learning on adherence to handball exercise: Mediating role of sport self-efficacy and enjoyment. Sport Psychology Studies. 2016;5(17):27-56. (In Persian)
  59. Alizadeh L, Mohammad Zadeh 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. (In Persian)
  60. Alizadeh L, Mohammadzadeh H. The effects of game sense pedagogy on decision making, supporting and implementing basketball skills in female students. Sports Psychology. 2022;1400(2):73-87. (In Persian)
  61. Fahimi H, Balali M, Parvinpour S. The effect of linear and non-linear training on individual and team creativity in futsal. Motor Behavior. 2021;13(45):159-84. (In Persian)
  62. Qaderi H, Ghadiri F, Bahram A. Effects of teacher centered and child centered approaches on actual and perceived motor competence of the elementary school girls. Motor Behavior. 2018;10(31):39-52. (In Persian)
  63. Ghari B, Mohammad Zadeh H, Ahmadi M. The effects of three instructional approaches on basketball game performance in university students. Motor Behavior. 2019;11(35):63-84. (In Persian)
  64. Ghari B, Mohammadzadeh H, Dehghanizade j. A comparison of game based and traditional instructional approaches: A study of physical activity, self-determined motivation and enjoyment. Journal of Sports and Motor Development and Learning. 2021;13(1):109-27. (In Persian)
  65. 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. 2021;13(45):91-112. (In Persian)
  66. Ghahreman Shahraki M, Ghadiri F, Bahram A. The effect of teacher-centered and motivational mastery climate approaches on physical activity of 8 years old children in Shahrekord. Research on Educational Sport. 2019;7(17):101-20. (In Persian)
  67. Kordi F, Arsham S, Parvinpour S, Lotfi G. The effect of constraint manipulation (non-linear method) on the level of intrinsic motivation and skills in girls aged 7 to 9 years. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences. 2021;28(9):157-71. (In Persian)
  68. Mohammadi M, Solymani Balavi O, Jahani J, Shafiei Sarvestan M, Daryanoosh F. The impact of the “TGFU” approach on students' sport skills in secondary first course. Studies in Learning & Instruction. 2019;11(1):163-82. (In Persian)
  69. Mousavi SK, Yaali R, Bahram A, Abbasi A. Effect of nonlinear pedagogy on the performance of the short backhand serve of badminton ‌. Research in Sport Management and Motor Behavior. 2019;9(18):1-16. (In Persian)
  70. Norouzi Seyed Hoseini E, Norouzi Seyed Hossieni R. Effects of TGFU teaching method on self-determine motivation and learning of volleyball serve in adolescent students. Motor Behavior. 2017;9(29):183-98. (In Persian)
  71. Nikravan M, Safania AM, Zarei A. Comparing the effectiveness of traditional and volleyball education pedagogies on competence and physical fitness of students. Sport Sciences Quarterly. 2018;10(31):26-39. (In Persian)
  72. Nikravan M, Safania AM, Zaree A. Comparing the effectiveness of traditional methods and sport education on knowledge and enthusiasm on volleyball. Sport Psychology Studies. 2019;8(28):43-50. (In Persian)
  73. Yasami M, Shahrzad N, Ghadiri F. Effects of teacher centered and mastery motivational climate approach on self-esteem and fundamental movement skills in children. Sport Psychology Studies. 2017;6(19):123-40. (In Persian)
  74. Yaali R, Teymoori N, Bagheri S. The effect of training method (linear and nonlinear) on student participation motivation in physical education class. Sport Psychology Studies. 2020;8(30):205-20. (In Persian)
  75. Magill Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
  76. Schmidt RA, Lee TD, Winstein C, Wulf G, Zelaznik HN. Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. 6th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2018.
  77. Lee TD, Swinnen SP, Serrien DJ. Cognitive effort and motor learning. Quest. 1994;46(3): 328-44.

 

Motor Behavior
Volume 16, Issue 55
April 2024
Pages 75-108
Files
History
  • Receive Date: 31 August 2022
  • Accept Date: 03 December 2022
Share
How to cite
Statistics