تجارب و دیدگاه‌های آموزشی معلمان تربیت‌بدنی ایرانی درمورد رویکردهای سنتی مبتنی بر تکنیک و رویکردهای بازی‌محور

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار رفتار حرکتی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان ایران

2 دانشجوی دکتری رفتار حرکتی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان ایران

چکیده
درک مفهومی و تجارب آموزشی معلمان تربیت‌بدنی نقش مهمی در پذیرش و اجرای رویکردهای نوین آموزش ایفا می‌کند. این مطالعه کیفی به بررسی تجربیات زیسته و دیدگاه‌های معلمان تربیت بدنی ایرانی درمورد رویکردهای سنتی مبتنی بر تکنیک و رویکردهای بازی‌محور پرداخته است. داده‌ها از طریق مصاحبه‌های نیمه‌ساختارمند با ۱۰ معلم داوطلب تربیت‌بدنی (۶ زن و ۴ مرد، میانگین سنی: ۲۰/۳۳ سال، میانگین سابقه تدریس: ۲۰/۹ سال) گرد‌آوری شد. در آغاز، تجربیات آموزشی معلمان در زمینه بازی‌های تاکتیکی، به‌ویژه ورزش‌های توپ و تور بررسی شد. سپس واکنش‌ها و تفسیرهای ایشان درباره نمونه‌هایی از «مدل آموزش بازی برای یادگیری» در این ورزش‌ها تحلیل شد تا میزان انطباق تلاش‌های آموزشی آن‌ها با اصول این مدل مشخص شود. تحلیل مضمون نشان داد، همه شرکت‌کنندگان عمدتاً از رویکردهای سنتی مبتنی بر تکنیک استفاده کردند، اما هم‌زمان اذعان داشتند که این روش‌ها انگیزه‌ شاگردان را کاهش می‌دهد و باعث دل‌زدگی آنان می‌شود. معلمان بازی‌ها را عمدتاً به‌عنوان ابزاری تکمیلی برای آموزش تکنیک‌ها می‌دانستند؛ با این حال، این دیدگاه در تضاد با اصول مدل آموزش بازی برای یادگیری است که بازی‌ها را در کانون فرایند یادگیری قرار می‌دهد و بر فهم تاکتیکی، تصمیم‌گیری، و یافتن راهکارها از راه سناریوهای بازیِ دگرگون‌شده پیش از اجرای تکنیک تأکید دارد. همچنین یافته‌ها نشان داد، معلمان تنها بخشی از اصول مدل آموزش بازی برای یادگیری را به‌کار می‌بندند. این پژوهش آشنایی اندک معلمان با رویکردهای بازی‌محور را به‌عنوان عامل اصلی تداوم استفاده از رویکردهای سنتی مبتنی بر تکنیک برجسته کرد. همچنین بر نیاز فوری به برنامه‌های آموزشی ویژه‌ رویکردهای بازی‌محور به‌عنوان چارچوبی نوین و کارآمد برای آموزش معلمان تربیت بدنی در ایران تأکید دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله English

Iranian PE Teachers’ Pedagogical Experiences and Perspectives on Traditional Technique-Based and Game-Based Approaches

نویسندگان English

Hamid Salehi 1
Marziyeh Bahrami Basiri 2
1 Associate Professor of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 Ph.D. Student in Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده English

Extended Abstract
Background and Purpose
Within the field of physical education (PE), two predominant pedagogical approaches prevail: the traditional Technique-Based Approaches (TBAs) and the more contemporary Game-Based Approaches (GBAs). Extensive research has identified several limitations associated with TBAs, including students' inability to achieve proficiency, diminished motivation, social exclusion of less-skilled learners, physical fatigue, disengagement, and a lack of meaningful comprehension of games (Davids et al., 2005; Ford et al., 2010; Holt et al., 2006; Light & Harvey, 2017).
Among GBAs, the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model, introduced by Bunker and Thorpe (1982), has gained notable influence. TGfU deviates from conventional instruction by prioritizing modified, developmentally appropriate games at the outset, rather than isolated technical drills. It encourages tactical awareness and decision-making through simplified, representative game forms. This approach emphasizes understanding over purely technical skill, enabling learners to develop both declarative and procedural knowledge and make informed decisions during gameplay.
Despite four decades of research supporting TGfU’s efficacy, its implementation in schools remains limited. Previous work suggests that teachers’ conceptual understanding and formal training are vital to its successful adoption. Hence, investigating teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and lived experiences is crucial for identifying barriers to TGfU uptake. This qualitative study thus explores Iranian PE teachers’ experiences with both TBAs and GBAs—in particular TGfU—to gain a richer understanding of their instructional practices and perceptions.
 
Methods
An inductive qualitative methodology employing thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was utilized. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with ten PE teachers (6 women and 4 men; mean age = 33.20 years; mean teaching experience = 9.20 years). Initially, participants described their experiences teaching tactical games, primarily net/wall sports such as volleyball, badminton, and table tennis. Subsequently, teachers viewed video recordings demonstrating TGfU-based lessons in these sports. Their reflections were analyzed to evaluate how closely their instructional methods aligned with TGfU principles.

Thematic analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework: familiarization with the data, generating initial codes, identifying and reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final report. This comprehensive process yielded key insights related to teachers’ instructional beliefs, challenges faced, and experiences engaging with TBAs and GBAs as pedagogical innovations.
 Results
Two principal themes emerged: (1) Dominant Teaching Methods and the Role of Games, and (2) Perceptions of GBAs, with a particular focus on TGfU (see Figure 1).
The first theme consisted of two sub-themes: “Characteristics of the Dominant Teaching Method” and “Functions of Using Games.” Interviewed teachers reported that traditional TBAs remain the prevailing instructional approach. Although many expressed overall satisfaction with TBAs, they also identified significant concerns such as students’ fatigue, waning interest, and limited engagement.
According to respondents, games were mainly employed for four instructional functions:
(a) as supplements to TBAs through additional technical drill practice,
(b) predominantly with younger students at lower educational levels,
(c) to boost students' enthusiasm and foster competitive spirit, and
(d) often constrained by limited class time and scarce resources.

After viewing TGfU demonstration videos, two further sub-themes were identified:
(a) the importance of instructional flexibility and adaptability in PE lessons, and
(b) partial incorporation of TGfU principles into current teaching practices.

Approximately half of the teachers acknowledged the necessity of adapting activities to meet diverse student needs and noted some parallels between their methods and TGfU. However, such adaptations typically involved simplifying drills or modifying equipment to enhance technical skill acquisition rather than cultivating tactical understanding. These modifications were often dictated by resource availability and followed a linear progression—from technical skill mastery toward gameplay tactics.
Conclusion
The findings demonstrate that traditional TBAs continue to dominate PE instruction, despite teachers’ growing awareness of their limitations in fostering student engagement and motivation. Although games are integrated into PE lessons, their use is frequently inconsistent with GBA frameworks such as TGfU. Instead, games are commonly relegated to secondary roles aimed at supporting skill development rather than serving as central pedagogical tools for tactical learning.
Most teachers interviewed showed limited familiarity with the comprehensive TGfU model. Systematic application of GBA principles was rare, hindered by insufficient training, lack of institutional support, and tight curricular schedules. Nonetheless, there was an emerging interest in adopting more flexible, student-centered instructional approaches. Some educators recognized TGfU's potential to align with developmental stages and enhance learner engagement, but emphasized the need for deeper pedagogical knowledge, specialized preparation, and structural support to facilitate effective implementation.
Transitioning from rigid, skill-focused instruction to adaptable, understanding-oriented approaches like TGfU requires institutional commitment, curricular time allocation, continuous professional development, and resource availability. Without these enabling factors, even teachers inclined toward pedagogical innovation may persist with traditional methodologies.
In summary, this study underscores the pivotal role of teacher understanding and professional training in adopting innovative pedagogies. The limited use of TGfU primarily stems from lack of exposure and professional development opportunities. Therefore, establishing structured training programs centered on GBAs is essential to modernize PE instruction in Iran, fostering more meaningful, inclusive, and effective learning experiences.
Keywords: Technique-Based Approaches, Physical Education (PE), Nonlinear Pedagogy, Game-Based Approaches
 
Article Message
This qualitative inquiry into Iranian PE teachers’ experiences with traditional TBAs and their perceptions of GBAs—particularly TGfU—reveals that despite concerns over declining student engagement, teachers predominantly rely on TBAs and primarily employ games for technical training. The findings highlight an urgent need for targeted GBA-focused professional development to revitalize and advance PE pedagogy within Iranian schools.
Ethical Considerations
This study was conducted following approval by the Ethics Committee of the University of Isfahan.
Funding
The authors declare that no external funding was received for this research.
Authors’ Contributions
All authors equally contributed to the conception, data collection, analysis, and preparation of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgement
The authors sincerely appreciate the voluntary participation of PE teachers in this study.
 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Technique-Based Approaches
Physical Education
Nonlinear Pedagogy
Game-Based Approaches
1.     Newell KM. Constraints on the development of coordination. In: Wade MG, Whiting HTA, editors. Motor development in children: aspects of coordination and control. Dordrecht, Germany: Martinus Nijhoff; 1986. p. 341-60.
2.     Renshaw I, Araújo D, Button C, Chow JY, Davids K, Moy B. Why the constraints-led approach is not teaching games for understanding: a clarification. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2016;21(5):459-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1095870  
3.     Tinning R. Pedagogy and human movement: theory, practice, research. London: Routledge; 2009.
4.     Schollhorn WI, Hegen P, Davids K. The nonlinear nature of learning-a differential learning approach. The Open Sports Sciences Journal. 2012;5(1):100-12. https://doi.org/10.2174/1875399X01205010100  
5.     Bunker D, Thorpe R. A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education. 1982;18(1):5-8. https://doi.org/10.12691/rpbs-8-1-1  
6.     Ford PR, Yates I, Williams AM. An analysis of practice activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: exploring the link between science and application. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2010;28(5):483-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410903582750  
7.     Holt JE, Ward P, Wallhead TL. The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in young adult soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2006;11(2):101-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980600708270  
8.     Davids K, Renshaw I, Glazier P. Movement models from sports reveal fundamental insights into coordination processes. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. 2005;33(1):36-42.
9.     Light RL, Harvey S. Positive pedagogy for sport coaching. Sport, Education and Society. 2017;22(2):271-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2015.1015977  
10.  Ennis CD. Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls. Sport, Education and Society. 1999;4(1):31-49. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajssm-2-6A-4   
11.  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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2002.10607847   
12.  Moy B, Renshaw I, Davids K. The impact of nonlinear pedagogy on physical education teacher education students’ intrinsic motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2016;21(5):517-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1072506  
13.  Susanto B, Wibowo WS, Harjani C, editors. Bible learning with board game for children. In: 2nd International Media Conference 2019 (IMC 2019). Atlantis Press; 2020.
14.  Pill S, Gambles E-AF, Griffin LL. Teaching games and sport for understanding. London: Routledge; 2023.
15.  Crespo M, Reid MM, Miley D. Tennis: applied examples of a game-based teaching approach. Strategies. 2004;17(4):27-30. https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2018.4684.1547  
16.  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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x14555293  
17.  Harvey S, Jarrett K. A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2014;19(3):278-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.754005   
18.  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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X13496001  
19.  Alotaibi MS. Game-based learning in early childhood education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2024;15:1307881. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1307881  
20.  Morales-Belando MT, Kirk D, Arias-Estero JL. A systematic review of teaching games for understanding intervention studies from a practice-referenced perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2022;93(4):670-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2021.1897066  
21.  Pill S, Gambles E-AF. Teaching games for understanding and athlete-centred coaching. In: Pill S, Gambles E-AF, Griffin LL, editors. Teaching games and sport for understanding. London: Routledge; 2023. p. 134-42.
22.  Light R, Tan S. Culture, embodied experience and teachers’ development of tgfu in australia and singapore. European Physical Education Review. 2006;12(1):99-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X06060659  
23.  Memmert D, Almond L, Bunker D, Butler J, Fasold F, Griffin L, et al. Top 10 research questions related to teaching games for understanding. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2015;86(4):347-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2015.1087294  
24.  Light R. Complex learning theory—its epistemology and its assumptions about learning: Implications for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2008;27(1):21-37. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.27.1.21   
25.  Butler JI. Teacher responses to teaching games for understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 1996;67(9):17-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1996.10604851  
26.  Rovegno I. The development of in-service teachers' knowledge of a constructivist approach to physical education: Teaching beyond activities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 1998;69(2):147-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1998.10607680  
27.  Butler J. Tgfu pet-agogy: old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2005;10(3):225-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980500340752  
28.  Light R. The social nature of games: Australian preservice primary teachers’ first experiences of teaching games for understanding. European Physical Education Review. 2002;8(3):286-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X020083007  
29.  Ha AS, Wang L, Collins J. Perceptions of hong kong physical education teachers on teaching games for understanding: implications for continuing professional development. Educational Research Journal. 2014;29(1/2):91-110. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.901491598583178  
30.  McNeill M, Fry J, Wright S, Tan W, Tan K, Schempp P. ‘In the local context’: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum. Sport, Education and Society. 2004;9(1):3-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357332042000175791  
31.  Wright S, McNeill M, Fry JM. The tactical approach to teaching games from teaching, learning and mentoring perspectives. Sport, Education and Society. 2009;14(2):223-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320902809153  
32.  Wright S, McNeill M, Fry J, Tan S, Tan C, Schempp P. Implications of student teachers’ implementation of a curricular innovation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2006;25(3):310-28. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.25.3.310  
33.  Liu YK. Games teaching: Changed or unchanged. Educational Research Journal. 1997;12(1):30-5. https://doi.org/1997v12n1-30-35  
34.  Díaz-Cueto M, Hernández-Álvarez JL, Castejón FJ. Teaching games for understanding to in-service physical education teachers: Rewards and barriers regarding the changing model of teaching sport. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2010;29(4):378-98. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.29.4.378  
35.  Rossi T, Fry JM, McNeill M, Tan CW. The games concept approach (gca) as a mandated practice: Views of singaporean teachers. Sport, Education and Society. 2007;12(1):93-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320601081591  
36.  Papagiannopoulos D, Digelidis N, Syrmpas I. Pe teachers' perceptions of and experiences with using the tgfu model in teaching team games in elementary school. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2023;23(2):482-91. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2023.02060  
37.  Van Manen M. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London: Routledge; 2016.
38.  Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903  
39.  Pakgohar A, Khalili M. Investigation of sample size in qualitative sampling methods. Popularization of Science. 2021;12(1):270-97 (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22034/popsci.2021.286809.1090  
40.  Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y  
41.  Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3(2):77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa  
42.  Olmos-Vega FM, Stalmeijer RE, Varpio L, Kahlke R. A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: amee guide no. 149. Med Teach. 2022:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287  
43.  Smith B, McGannon KR. Developing rigor in qualitative research: problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International review of sport and exercise psychology. 2017;11(1):101-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357  
44.  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. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.21.2.177  
45.  Gambles EF, Anderson SD, Leyland SD, Ling J, editors. Pre-service teachers’ influences, beliefs, and barriers to implementing teaching games for understanding in england. In: TGfU SIG 40th Anniversary Conference, TGfU SIG (online) January 2023, Oral Presentation; 2023.
46.  Harvey S, Cushion C, Sammon P. Dilemmas faced by pre-service teachers when learning about and implementing a game-centred approach. European Physical Education Review. 2015;21(2):238-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X14560773  
47.  Wang CL, Ha A. Pre-service teachers’ perception of teaching games for understanding: a hong kong perspective. European Physical Education Review. 2009;15(3):407-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X09364724  
48.  Anderson SD, Gambles EF, editors. Pe teachers' engagement with teaching games for understanding and perceived barriers to implementation. In: 3rd Euro-Pak International Conference on Sport Sciences and Physical Education, Sarhad University, October 2021, Keynote Presentation; Peshawar, Pakistan (online).
49.  Meyer J, Land R. Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge. London: Routledge; 2006.
50.  Dyson B, Griffin LL, Hastie P. Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest. 2004;56(2):226-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2004.10491823  
51.  Gambles E-A. Teaching games for understanding: Teachers’ socialisation, perceptions and interpretations: [Doctoral Dissertation]: [The University of Sunderland]; 2024.
دوره 17، شماره 59
اردیبهشت 1404
صفحه 137-156

  • تاریخ دریافت 04 دی 1403
  • تاریخ بازنگری 16 اردیبهشت 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 19 خرداد 1404