Turner A P, Martinek T J
Division of Kinesiology, Bowling Green State University, USA.
Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999 Sep;70(3):286-96. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1999.10608047.
The purpose of this study was to test the validity of the games for understanding model by comparing it to a technique approach to instruction and a control group. The technique method focused primarily on skill instruction where the skill taught initially was incorporated into a game at the end of each lesson. The games for understanding approach emphasized developing tactical awareness and decision making in small game situations. Two physical education specialists taught field hockey using these approaches for 15 lessons (45 min each). The control group did not receive any field hockey instruction. Data were collected from 71 middle school children. Pretests and posttests were administered for hockey knowledge, skill, and game performance. Separate analyses of variance or analyses of covariance were conducted to examine group differences for cognitive and skill outcomes. The games for understanding group scored significantly higher on passing decision making than the technique and control groups during posttest game play and significantly higher than the control group for declarative and procedural knowledge. The games for understanding group scored significantly higher on control and passing execution than the other groups during posttest game play. For hockey skill, there were no significant differences among the treatment groups for accuracy, but the technique group recorded faster times than the control group on the posttest.
本研究的目的是通过将理解式游戏模型与一种技术教学方法及一个对照组进行比较,来检验该模型的有效性。技术教学法主要侧重于技能教学,即每节课结束时将最初教授的技能融入到游戏中。理解式游戏教学法强调在小型游戏情境中培养战术意识和决策能力。两位体育专家采用这些方法教授曲棍球课程,共15节(每节45分钟)。对照组未接受任何曲棍球教学。从71名中学生中收集数据。对曲棍球知识、技能和比赛表现进行了前测和后测。进行了单独的方差分析或协方差分析,以检验认知和技能结果的组间差异。在测试后的比赛中,理解式游戏组在传球决策方面的得分显著高于技术组和对照组,在陈述性和程序性知识方面的得分显著高于对照组。在测试后的比赛中,理解式游戏组在控球和传球执行方面的得分显著高于其他组。对于曲棍球技能,各治疗组在准确性方面没有显著差异,但技术组在后测中的用时比对照组更快。