مقایسۀ رویکرد آموزش مبتنی بر بازی و رویکرد سنتی: بررسی میزان فعالیت بدنی، انگیزش خود-تعیین و لذت

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 . دکتری رفتارحرکتی، دانشکدۀ علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران

2 . استاد رفتارحرکتی، دانشکدۀ علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران

3 استادیار رفتارحرکتی، دانشکدۀ علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه، ایران

چکیده

مطالعۀ حاضر با هدف بررسی تأثیر دو رویکرد آموزشی مبتنی بر بازی و رویکرد آموزشی سنتی بر میزان فعالیت بدنی، انگیزش خود-تعیین و لذت از فعالیت بدنی دانشجویان شرکت‌کننده در کلاس‌های تربیت بدنی انجام گرفت. پژوهش حاضر از نوع نیمه‌تجربی بود. شرکت‌کنندگان شامل 30 دانشجوی مرد (میانگین سنی72/1 ± 67/20 سال) بودند که به‌صورت در دسترس انتخاب و به‌طور تصادفی به دو گروه آموزش مبتنی بر بازی و آموزشی سنتی تقسیم شدند و 18 جلسه به مدت 6 هفته و هر هفته 3 جلسه به تمرین بازی بسکتبال پرداختند. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها شامل سیستم مشاهده‌ای زمان آموزش آمادگی، دستگاه گام‌شمار بیورر، پرسشنامۀ انگیزش درونی و پرسشنامۀ خود-تعیینی بود. برای تحلیل داده‌ها از آمار توصیفی، آزمون تی مستقل، تحلیل کوواریانس و تحلیل کوواریانس رتبه استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که دو گروه آموزش مبتنی بر بازی و سنتی در فاکتورهای مدت زمان فعالیت بدنی متوسط تا شدید و تعداد گام تفاوت معنادار دارند (001/0≥P). از طرفی دو گروه آموزش مبتنی بر بازی و سنتی در لذت بردن از فعالیت بدنی و احساس شایستگی تفاوت معناداری نداشتند؛ اما از نظر خودمختاری (001/0≥P) و احساس تعلق (013/0≥P) تفاوت معنادار بود. نتایج نشان داد که رویکرد آموزشی مبتنی بر بازی می‌تواند موجب ارتقای میزان فعالیت بدنی و کیفیت انگیزشی دانشجویان در کلاس‌های تربیت بدنی شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Comparison of Game Based and Traditional Instructional Approaches: A Study of Physical Activity, Self-Determined Motivation and Enjoyment

نویسندگان [English]

  • borhan adin ghari 1
  • hasan mohammadzadeh 2
  • jalal Dehghanizade 3
1 PhD of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
2 Professor of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
3 . Assistant Professor of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
چکیده [English]

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of two instructional approaches (game based and traditional) on physical activity, self-determined motivation and physical activity enjoyment in university students who participated in physical education classes. This study was semi-experimental. The participants included 30 male university students (mean age 20.67±1.72 years) who were selected by convenience sampling method and randomly divided into two groups: game based instruction and traditional instruction. They participated in 18 sessions (for 6 weeks and 3 sessions a week) of basketball. The data were collected by the System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time, Beurer pedometer, Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, and Self-Determination Questionnaire. Descriptive statistics, independent t test, ANCOVA, and RANCOVA were used for analysis of data. The results showed significant differences between game based and traditional groups in the duration of moderate to high intensity physical activity and the number of steps (P≤0.001). There were no significant differences in physical activity enjoyment and a sense of competence between game based and traditional groups; But there were significant differences between two groups in autonomy (P≤0.001) and belonging (P≤0.013).The results showed that game based instructional approach can enhance physical activity level and quality of motivation of university students in physical education classes. 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Enjoyment
  • instruction
  • Motivation
  • Physical Activity
  • Self-determination
1.   Maher JP, Hevel DJ, Reifsteck EJ, Drollette ES. Physical activity is positively associated with college students' positive affect regardless of stressful life events during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychology of sport and exercise. 2021;52:101826.
2.   Bray SR, Born HA. Transition to university and vigorous physical activity: Implications for health and psychological well-being. Journal of American College Health. 2004;52(4):181-8.
3.   Keating XD, Guan J, Piñero JC, Bridges DM. A meta-analysis of college students' physical activity behaviors. Journal of American college health. 2005;54(2):116-26.
4.   Alexander K, Luckman J. Australian Teachersí Perceptions and Uses of the Sport Education Curriculum Model. European physical education review. 2001;7(3):243-67.
5.   Harvey S, Song Y, Baek J-H, Van Der Mars H. Two sides of the same coin: Student physical activity levels during a game-centred soccer unit. European Physical Education Review. 2016;22(4):411-29.
6.   Roberts S, Fairclough S. Observational analysis of student activity modes, lesson contexts and teacher interactions during games classes in high school (11—16 years) physical education. European Physical Education Review. 2011;17(2):255-68.
7.   Joy IB, Barbara JM. Teaching Games for Understanding: As a Curriculum Model. Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, research, and practice Windsor: Human Kinetics. 2005.
8.   Kirk D, Macdonald D. Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical education. 1998;17(3):376-87.
9.   Griffin LL, Butler JI. More teaching games for understanding: Moving globally: Human Kinetics; 2010.
10. Light RL. Game sense: Pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment: Routledge; 2012.
11. Blomqvist M, Luhtanen P, Laakso 1 L. Comparison of two types of instruction in badminton. European journal of physical education. 2001;6(2):139-55.
12. 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.
13. Light R, Kentel JA, Kehler M, Atkinson M. Soft pedagogy for a hard sport: Disrupting hegemonic masculinity in high school rugby through feminist-informed pedagogy. Boys’ Bodies: Speaking the Unspoken. 2010:133-54.
14. Armstrong N, Welsman JR. The physical activity patterns of European youth with reference to methods of assessment. Sports medicine. 2006;36(12):1067-86.
15. Gréhaigne J-F, Godbout P, Bouthier D. The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports. Quest. 2001;53(1):59-76.
16. 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.
17. Yelling M, Penney D, Swaine I. Physical activity in physical education: A case study investigation. European Journal of Physical Education. 2000;5(1):45-66.
18. Jones R, Marshall S, Peters DM. Can we play a game now? The intrinsic benefits of TGfU. European Journal of Physical & Health Education: Social Humanistic Perspective. 2010;4:57-64.
19. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist. 2000;55(1):68.
20. Lonsdale C, Sabiston CM, Raedeke TD, Ha AS, Sum RK. Self-determined motivation and students' physical activity during structured physical education lessons and free choice periods. Preventive medicine. 2009;48(1):69-73.
21. Haerens L, Kirk D, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Vansteenkiste M. Motivational profiles for secondary school physical education and its relationship to the adoption of a physically active lifestyle among university students. European Physical Education Review. 2010;16(2):117-39.
22. Ntoumanis N. A self‐determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British journal of educational psychology. 2001;71(2):225-42.
23. Standage M, Duda JL, Ntoumanis N. A test of self‐determination theory in school physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2005;75(3):411-33.
24. Gil-Arias A, Harvey S, Cárceles A, Práxedes A, Del Villar F. Impact of a hybrid TGfU-Sport Education unit on student motivation in physical education. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179876.
25. Reeve J, Jang H. What teachers say and do to support students' autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of educational psychology. 2006;98(1):209.
26. De Meyer J, Tallir IB, Soenens B, Vansteenkiste M, Aelterman N, Van den Berghe L, et al. Does observed controlling teaching behavior relate to students’ motivation in physical education? Journal of Educational Psychology. 2014;106(2):541.
27. Gil-Arias A, Diloy-Peña S, Sevil-Serrano J, García-González L, Abós Á. A Hybrid TGfU/SE Volleyball Teaching Unit for Enhancing Motivation in Physical Education: A Mixed-Method Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(1):110.
28. 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.
29. Holt NL, Strean WB, Bengoechea EG. Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of teaching in Physical Education. 2002;21(2):162-76.
30. McKenzie TL, Sallis JF, Nader PR. SOFIT: System for observing fitness instruction time. Journal of teaching in physical Education. 1992;11(2):195-205.
31. Honas JJ, Washburn RA, Smith BK, Greene JL, Cook-Wiens G, Donnelly JE. The System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT) as a measure of energy expenditure during classroom-based physical activity. Pediatric Exercise Science. 2008;20(4):439-45.
32. Fairclough S. Physical activity, perceived competence and enjoyment during high school physical education. European Journal of Physical Education. 2003;8(1):5-18.
33. Norouzi A, Norouzi S, Cid L. Examining the psychometric characteristics of tools for measuring intrinsic motivation inventory and perceived motivational climate scale among medical students. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2014;13(12):1114-26.
34. Behzadnia B, Ahmadi M, Amani J. The factorial structure of the self-regulation questionnaire in college physical education class (SRQ-PE). 2017.
35. Harvey S, Smith L, Fairclough S, Savory L, Kerr C. Investigation of pupils' levels of MVPA and VPA during physical education units focused on direct instruction and tactical games models. The Physical Educator. 2015;72(5).
36. Mitchell S, Griffin L, Oslin J. An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching invasion games. Research quarterly for exercise and sport. 1995;66:31-65.
37. Mandigo J, Holt N, Anderson A, Sheppard J. Children's motivational experiences following autonomy-supportive games lessons. European Physical Education Review. 2008;14(3):407-25.
38. Evans JR, Light RL. Coach development through collaborative action research: A rugby coach’s implemention of game sense pedagogy. Asian Journal of Exercise & Sports Science. 2008;5(1):31-7.
39. Goudas M, Biddle S, Fox K, Underwood M. It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it! Teaching style affects children’s motivation in track and field lessons. The Sport Psychologist. 1995;9(3):254-64.
40. Mandigo JL, Holt NL. Elementary students' accounts of optimal challenge in physical education. Physical Educator. 2006;63(4):170.