Bromilow Liam, Milne Nikki, Woods Carl T, Dowsett Caroline K, Keogh Justin W L
Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.
School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
Sports Med Open. 2025 Aug 4;11(1):90. doi: 10.1186/s40798-025-00893-y.
In the sport sciences, skill development is often (implicitly) explained through two metatheoretical perspectives: interactionism and transactionism. Given certain assumptions, the former adheres to a linear pedagogical approach to learning, while the latter follows a nonlinear pedagogical approach. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effects of linear and nonlinear pedagogical approaches on the development of technical and tactical skills in team-invasion ball sports.
A systematic search of six databases (EmBase, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, OVID Medline, CINAHL, and OVID PsychInfo) was undertaken from root to 1st May 2024. Included studies were critically appraised using the ROBINS-I and RoB2 instruments. A narrative and descriptive synthesis approach was utilised.
From 7450 potential records, nine studies were included, which explored the effects of a nonlinear versus linear pedagogy for developing technical and tactical skills in team-invasion ball sports. While, for most outcomes, the results showed there were no significant differences, nonlinear pedagogy did appear more favourable in 34% of technical outcomes. Further, descriptive synthesis of four studies revealed that nonlinear pedagogy was significantly better for developing tactical skills in 66% of outcomes.
While based on limited studies, linear and nonlinear pedagogical approaches appear to achieve similar results with regards to technical skill development. However, nonlinear pedagogy was favoured in some studies. With regards to tactical skill development, nonlinear pedagogical approaches appear better than linear approaches. Further high-quality research is needed to confirm these findings and examine how they may be implicated by the representativeness of the assessment instruments.
Both linear and nonlinear pedagogical approaches assist with skill development in team-invasion ball sports. Nonlinear pedagogical approaches generally result in greater effects when developing tactical skills, while most literature shows there are no significant differences between approaches when developing technical skills. Further high-quality research exploring the effects of these pedagogical approaches is required to substantiate these findings. Questions remain regarding the representativeness of the assessment instruments used in the studies included in this review.
This systematic review is registered with Open Science Framework- https://osf.io/za247/.
在体育科学领域，技能发展通常（隐含地）通过两种元理论视角来解释：互动主义和相互作用主义。在某些假设条件下，前者坚持线性教学法来进行学习，而后者遵循非线性教学法。本系统评价的目的是比较线性和非线性教学法对团队对抗球类运动中技术和战术技能发展的影响。
从建库至2024年5月1日，对六个数据库（EmBase、PubMed、SPORTDiscus、OVID Medline、CINAHL和OVID PsychInfo）进行了系统检索。使用ROBINS-I和RoB2工具对纳入的研究进行严格评价。采用叙述性和描述性综合方法。
从7450条潜在记录中，纳入了9项研究，这些研究探讨了非线性教学法与线性教学法对团队对抗球类运动中技术和战术技能发展的影响。虽然对于大多数结果而言，结果表明没有显著差异，但在34%的技术结果中，非线性教学法似乎更具优势。此外，对四项研究的描述性综合表明，在66%的结果中，非线性教学法在发展战术技能方面明显更好。
虽然基于有限的研究，但线性和非线性教学法在技术技能发展方面似乎取得了相似的结果。然而，在一些研究中，非线性教学法更受青睐。关于战术技能发展，非线性教学法似乎比线性教学法更好。需要进一步的高质量研究来证实这些发现，并研究评估工具的代表性可能如何影响这些发现。
线性和非线性教学法都有助于团队对抗球类运动中的技能发展。在发展战术技能时，非线性教学法通常会产生更大的效果，而大多数文献表明，在发展技术技能时，两种教学法之间没有显著差异。需要进一步的高质量研究来探讨这些教学法的效果，以证实这些发现。关于本评价中纳入的研究中使用的评估工具的代表性，仍然存在疑问。
本系统评价已在开放科学框架（Open Science Framework）注册 - https://osf.io/za247/ 。
