Effect of Pedagogical Model on Indian and Malaysian Junior Hockey Players’ Decision Making and Skill Execution

Sanmuga Nathan

Abstract


Background: This paper reports comparison of two studies investigated across Malaysia and India using merged pedagogical model (combination Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) with Tactical Game model (TGM)) termed as Tactical Model (TM) was compared to a semi traditional model termed as Skill Drill Technical (SDT). Objective: The objectives of these two studies were to investigate the effect of these two pedagogical models across two countries using mini-games of 5 versus 5, examining: decision-making and skill execution game situations among junior hockey players in coaching context. Methodology: These two quasi experimental studies comprised of Indian and Malaysian junior elite hockey players age 14±3 years old whereby n =30 players in each country was randomly selected and assigned equally to an quasi experimental group (TM, n= 15), and to SDT group (n=15) players. Result: Results for decision-making on whether to dribble, pass, tackle and score  significant improvement using TM (6.93±6.58) compared to SDT (2.42±3.01), among Indian junior hockey players, F(2,28) =5.84, p<0.05 after intervention. Similar results observed among the Malaysian players too whereby posttest score revealed TM (3.28±.311) while SDT (2.96±4.61). Whereas skill execution result for dribbling, passing, tackling and scoring indicated a significant improvement among Indian hockey players, F (1,28) = 10.00, p <0.05 via  TM (4.62±2.16); compared to with SDT (1.70±1.43). In contrast indicated, TM recorded no significant improvement compared to SDT after intervention F(1,28) = 1.64, p>0.05 among Malaysian players. Conclusion: TM seems to be suitable pedagogical model, however further research should address other parameter of game play in particular the relationship between agility and decision making of hockey game play, and coaches perception, understanding and usage of TM across other Asian countries

Keywords: Tactical model, Teaching Game for Understanding, Tactical Game Model, decision-making, skill execution


Full Text:

PDF

References


Bhaskaran (2003). Game Sense. A paper presentation at Karnataka hockey level 3 coaching course. Retrieved from http://www.bharatiyahockey.org/gurukul/class2.htm. 9.11.2004

Bunker, D., and Thorpe, R. (1986). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary schools. The Bulletin of Physical Education, (19), 5-8.

Crespo, M., Reid, M. M., and Miley, D. (2004). Tennis: Applied examples of a game-based teaching approach. Strategies, 17(4), 27-31.

Cushion, J.C (2013). Applying Game Centered Approaches in coaching: a critical analysis of the ‘dilemmas of practice’ impacting change DOI:10.1080/21640629.2013.861312

Drewe, S. B. (2000). An examination of the relationship between coaching and teaching. QUEST, 52, 79-88.

Evans, J. (2012). Elite rugby union coaches' interpretation and use of Game Sense in New Zealand. Asian Journal of Exercise and Sports Science, 9(1), 85-97.

Evans, J., Light, R. (2010). The impact of Game Sense on Australian rugby coaches' practice: A question of pedagogy. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(2), 103-115.

French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., and Jones, J. (1996). The effects of a 6 week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 15, 439-463.

Gay, L.,R. and Airsan, P.(2003). Educational Research. Competencies fir analysis and applications. Merrill Prentice Hall.

Grehaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., and Bouthier, P. (2001). The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports.QUEST, 53,59-75.

Grehaigne, J. F., and Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. QUEST, 47, 490-505.

Harvey, S. (2003). A study of U19 college soccer players improved in game performance using the game performance assessment instrument. Proceedings of the Second international conference: teaching sports and physical education for understanding. University of Melbourne, Australia 11-14 December 2003.

Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 73(7), 44-48.

Kirk, D., and MacPhail, A. (2002) Teaching Games for Understanding and Situated Learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21 (2), 177-192.

Lawton, J. (1989). Comparison of two teaching methods in games. TheBulletin of Physical Education,25(1), 35–38.

Light, R. (2013). Game Sense: Pedagogy for performance, participation and enjoyment.

London. Routledge.

Light, R. (2003). The joy of learning: Emotion and learning in games through TGFU. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 36(1), 93-103.

Light, R., and Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. QUEST, 55, 161-176.

Martin, A.J., and Gaskin, C.J. (2004). An integrated physical education model. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand Te Kotuku Rerenge, 37, 61-69.

Memmert, D., Baker, J., and Bertsch, C. (2010). Play and practice in the development of sport-specific creativity in team sports. High Ability Skills, 21(1),13-18.

Metzler, M. (2005). Implications of models-based instruction for research on teaching: A focus on teaching games for understanding In Griffin, L.L., and Butler. J.I . (2005) (eds.),Teaching games for understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Mitchell, S.A., Oslin, J.L., and Griffin, L.L. (2005). Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L., and Oslin, J. L. (1994). Tactical awareness as a developmentally appropriate focus for teaching of games in elementary and secondary physical education. The Physical Educator, 51, 21-27.

Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L., and Oslin, J. L. (2005). Teaching sport concepts and skills. A Tactical Games Approach. Human Kinetics

Mosston, M., and Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (5th Ed). New York: Benjamin Cummigs

Nathan, S. (2008). The effects and sustainability of training programmers’ using Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU) with different teaching style on students with varying hockey skill levels. A paper presented at the 1st Asia Pacific Sport in Education Conference, Adelaide, South Australia, 21 January 2008

Nathan, S. and Khanna (2012). A comparison Study of TGfU with Technical Training Model in Mini Game Performance, Speed and Accuracy among Junior Hockey players. Pan-Asian Journal of Sports & Physical Education, 4(1), 23-37.

Nevett, M., Rovegno, I., Babiarz, M., and McCaughtry, N. (2001). Changes in basic tactics and motor skills in an invasion type game after a 12-lesson unit of instruction. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 20, 352-369.

Pill, S. (2013).Using appreciative inquiry to explore Australian football coaches ‘experience with game sense coaching. Sport, Education and Society

Psotta, R., and Martin, A. (2011). Changes in decision making skill and skill execution in soccer performance: The intervention study. Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomic, Gymn, 41(2), 7-15.

Rink, J. E. (2002). Teaching physical education for learning. (4thed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E., and Graham, C. (1996). Implications for practice and research. Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 15, 490-502.

Rink, J.E., French., and Tjeerdsma (1996). Foundation for the learning and instruction of sport and games. Journal of Physical Education, 15, 399-117.

Renshaw, I., Davids, K., Shuttleworth, R., & Chow, J. (2009) Insights from ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory can underpin a philosophy of coaching. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 40(4), 540-602.

Serpell, B.G,, Young, W. B., and Ford, M. (2011). Are the perceptual and decision-making components of agility trainable? A preliminary investigation. Journal Strength Conditioning Res., 25(5). Doi10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d682e6.

Siedentop, D. (2001). Introduction to physical education, fitness, and sport (4thed.). Los Angeles, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Smith, W. (2014). Fundamental movement skills and fundamental games skills are complementary pairs and should be taught in complementary ways at all stages of skill development. Sports and Education Society, 1-16, DOI:10.1080/13573322.2014.927757

Thelen, E . (1989). The rediscovery of motor development: Learning new things from on old field. Development psychology, 25(6), 946-949

Thorpe, R. (2013). Teaching games for understanding: evolution of an approach 1960s to 2012. http://www.ipbl.edu.my/icotlg/papers/session%203/1%20Dr%20Rod%20Thorpe%20TGfU%20Kuching.pdf

Turner, A. (1996). Teaching for understanding: Myth or reality? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46-48.

Turner, A., and Martinek, T. J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge, and play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 3-21.

Wassmer, D. J., and Mookerjee, S. A. (2002). Descriptive profile of elite U.S. women’s collegiate field hockey players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 42(2), 165-171.

Wein, H (2004). Developing game intelligence in soccer, Aurburn. Michigan.

Werner, P., Thorpe, R., and Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding: Evolution of a model. Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 28-33.

Zuccolo. A, Spittle & Phill, S. (2014). Game Sense Research in Coaching: Findings and Reflections. University of Sydney Papers in HMHCE-Special Games Edition, 15-30.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2024 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Kinesiology and Sports Science

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.