Physical Education Department, Faculty of Education, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 16071 Cuenca, Spain.
Escola Superior Desporto e Lazer, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Rua Escola Industrial e Comercial de Nun'Álvares, 4900-347 Viana do Castelo, Portugal.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 12;17(14):5008. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17145008.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 6 weeks direct instruction and teaching games for understanding (TGfU) programs on the decision-making and execution (post-interventions), as well, as on the physical activity (PA) levels during sessions. Thirty under-12 football players participated in this study (age: 10.3 ± 0.45 years) and were randomly assigned to TGfU ( = 15) or direct instruction ( = 15) group. Two sessions/week were implemented. Results revealed that TGfU promoted higher levels ( = 0.043; d = 2.99) of light PA (28.96%) compared with direct instruction (27.55%). Non-significant higher sedentary PA levels ( = 0.073; d = 2.62) were found in the control group (35.48%). In terms of tactical principles, conservation of the ball increased the percentage of moderate to vigorous physical activity in TGfU (43.60%) compared with direct instruction (38.05%). According to the Game Performance Evaluation Tool (GPET), significant improvements ( = 0.018, d = 3.78) of the attacking player with the ball in the percentage of change between groups in the unsuccessful execution in TGfU (% = -62.2) were observed compared with direct instruction (% = 14.2). TGfU seems to be more appropriate than direct instruction to increase the light PA levels during sessions while no significant differences were found between programs in moderate and vigorous intensities. Regarding the effects of programs in decisions, greater improvements in decisions with the ball were found in TGFU compared to DI.
本研究旨在比较 6 周直接指导和教学游戏理解(TGfU)方案对决策和执行(干预后)以及对课程中身体活动(PA)水平的影响。30 名 12 岁以下足球运动员参与了本研究(年龄:10.3 ± 0.45 岁),并随机分配到 TGfU(n = 15)或直接指导(n = 15)组。每周实施 2 次课程。结果表明,与直接指导相比,TGfU 促进了更高水平的轻度 PA(28.96%)(= 0.043;d = 2.99)。对照组中发现非显著更高的久坐 PA 水平(= 0.073;d = 2.62)(35.48%)。在战术原则方面,控球的守恒增加了 TGfU 中中等到剧烈 PA 的百分比(43.60%),而直接指导(38.05%)。根据比赛表现评估工具(GPET),在 TGfU 中,持球进攻球员在不成功执行百分比方面的变化组间百分比(%= -62.2)与直接指导(%= 14.2)相比,具有显著的改善(= 0.018,d = 3.78)。与直接指导相比,TGfU 似乎更适合增加课程中的轻度 PA 水平,而在中等到剧烈强度方面,两个方案之间没有发现显著差异。关于方案对决策的影响,与 DI 相比,在 TGfU 中发现了更多与球有关的决策的改进。