Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
39
Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae
Vol. 55 No 1 2015
IMMEDIATE AND RETENTION EFFECTS OF TEACHING GAMES
FOR UNDERSTANDING APPROACH ON BASKETBALL
KNOWLEDGE
Gabriela Olosová, Ludmila Zapletalová
Department of Sport Games, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports,
Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia
Abstract. Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) links tactics and skills by emphasizing the
appropriate timing and application within the tactical context of the game. It has been linked to the
development of enhanced tactical knowledge. The purpose of the study was to determine immediate and
delayed effects of TGfU on procedural and declarative knowledge of basketball and to compare it with
a technical approach. Experimental group (EG) (11 fifth graders + 18 sixth graders) was taught by
TGfU and a control group (CG) (16 fifth graders + 24 sixth graders) was taught by a technical approach
for 8 weeks in Physical Education (PE) classes, both. A written test was constructed to evaluate pupils’
declarative and procedural knowledge of basketball. The test was applied after the intervention to
determine immediate effects and 8 months after the intervention to determine retention effects of the
experimental programme. Shapiro-Wilk test, Wilcoxon T-test, Man-Whitney U-test were used for
statistical analysis of obtained data. Cohen’s d was used to calculate effect size. Generally basketball
knowledge was better in EG than in CG after the intervention (p<0.05) what confirms moderate effect
size. When declarative and procedural knowledge were analysed separately there was no significant
difference between EG and CG. Nevertheless, moderate effect sizes indicate that the data are
particularly meaningful in terms of school practice. Retention effects of both approaches were similar.
Total knowledge and declarative knowledge were worse after 8 months than immediately after the
intervention in both groups (p<0.01). In both groups, there was no significant difference in procedural
knowledge between the test written immediately after the intervention and 8 months later. Differences
of changes were not significant between the groups.
Key words: Physical Education, basketball, Teaching Games for Understanding approach
___________________________________________________________________________
DOI 10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005
© Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae
- 10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 02:49:09PM
via free access
40
Introduction
Physical Education has lifelong value and purpose and it lends itself to a creative tool
to learning and teaching. Such approach means teaching essential knowledge, skills and
understanding within creative contexts where the focus is developing pupils 'capacity to
become highly active explorers of knowledge, ideas and strategies and in enabling and
motivating them to apply knowledge and skills by making choices and decisions (Pickard and
Maude 2014). Despite that, some may think that it is safer to teach in a traditional, didactic
manner where learners are viewed as ‘empty vessels’ (Piaget 1952). Such model of games
teaching, known as a technical approach, involves teaching the skills required for a game in
isolation before playing the game. This method suits those learners capable of mastering
technical skills at that moment in time, but does not always enable less physically competent
learners to succeed. While there is an important place for practice and performance
technically accurate skills, these alone do not make games players. Griffin and Butler (2005)
suggest that pupils would become more proficient players if they learned to understand the
decisions to be made during the game. Furthermore, this model of teaching relies more on
teacher orders and less on learner participation. However, children enjoy, engage with and
learn from creative teachers, and learn most from teachers who support and challenge their
thinking (Pickard and Maude 2014).
On the other hand, there is a TGfU which focuses on problem-solving, and situated
and pupil-centred learning, thereby maximising player enjoyment (Griffin and Butler 2005).
Kirk and MacPhail (2002) argue that TGfU enables the learner to be actively engaged with
the learning environment, resulting in an increased ability to make sense of new knowledge,
which in turn fosters the development of intelligent game players. Given the active
engagement of the learner, the TGfU is an ideal vehicle to help with the development of
higher-order cognitive processes. When the TGfU approach is used, the learner develops an
appreciation for a game, which serves as a foundation for making good decisions (Oslin and
Mitchell 2006). McBride and Xiang (2004) have suggested that the TGfU supports the
development of metacognitive processes, such as decision-making, critical thinking and
problem solving.
Methods
For better understanding of a research, design there is a figure below (Fig. 1). At the
time t0 basketball skills and somatic characteristics had been measured but this is not relevant
to this paper. Afterwards the intervention was conducted in duration of 8 weeks. Importantly,
- 10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 02:49:09PM
via free access
41
a knowledge test was applied after the intervention at the time t1 and the same test was applied
8 months later at the time t2. Tests of basketball skills and game performance were applied
along with the knowledge test but these are not the subject of this study.
The aim of our study was to determine the immediate and retention effects of the
TGfU on procedural and declarative knowledge in basketball and to compare it with the
technical approach.
Figure 1
Research design
EG consisted of 11 fifth-graders (year of birth 2002 - 2003) and 18 sixth-graders (year
of birth 2001 - 2002) and CG consisted of 16 fifth-graders and 24 sixth-graders. During 8
weeks of the intervention EG was taught by the TGfU approach and CG by the technical
approach twice a week for 45 minutes in basketball classes, both. Afterwards both groups
continued having regular PE classes for 6 months what was followed by 2-month summer
break. To increase the validity of the experiment PE classes during the intervention were
conducted by the same teacher in every group and none of the groups played basketball in PE
between knowledge test 1 and 2.
To collect data the knowledge test was applied firstly after the intervention (t1) and
secondly 8 months later (t2). Seven out of 12 questions were concerned to basketball rules
(declarative knowledge) and five questions to tactics (procedural knowledge) of basketball.
Both closed and open questions were used.
The obtained data were processed by Shapiro-Wilk test to determine normal
distribution. Since only 1/3 of the data were normally distributed, nonparametric tests Mann-
Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon T-test were applied for further analysis. SPSS Statistics
programme, v. 17 was used. Cohen d was used to calculate effect size which was interpreted
t0 t1 t2
Knowledge test 1/
Motor tests 2/
Game performance 1
Knowledge test 2/
Motor tests 3/
Game performance 2/
Somatic characteristics
measurement 2
8 weeks 8 months
Motor tests 1/
Somatic characteristics
measurement 1
- 10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 02:49:09PM
via free access
42
as small at cut point of 0.2, moderate at cut point 0.5 and large at cut point 0.8 (Cohen 1988).
Declarative and procedural knowledge were evaluated separately and together as total
knowledge. A level of significance was set on 5 %.
Results and Discussion
A level of total knowledge was higher by 6.47% in EG than in CG (p<0.05). The
calculated effect size between EG and CG was moderate (d=0.5). The mean value was 9.28
point/pupil in EG and 8.5 point/pupil in CG. Declarative and procedural knowledge were
higher in EG than in CG but the difference was not significant (Fig. 2). Nevertheless moderate
effects sizes of both declarative (d=0.4) and procedural knowledge (d=0.4) indicate that the
data are particularly meaningful in terms of school practice. Therefore, we can presume that
TGfU approach has greater influence on the knowledge in basketball than in the technical
approach. Similarly, Turner and Martinek (1999) reported that students in a TGfU group
scored higher measures of declarative and procedural knowledge in field hockey than a CG
that was taught with more technique-oriented approach. Popelka (2012) identically reported
that pupils in a TGfU group scored higher measures of procedural knowledge in volleyball
than a CG that was taught with a technical approach. Similarly, Allison and Thorpe (1997)
reported that students who were taught invasion games with the TGfU showed improvements
in knowledge and understanding of when to pass, shoot or dribble, and how to make effective
decisions to provide support off the ball. Grade six students in two separate studies reported
higher levels of tactical knowledge in invasion (Mitchell, Griffin and Oslin, 1995) and
net/wall games (Griffin, Oslin and Mitchell, 1995). Combined, our research supports the
positive influence that TGfU can have on the development of knowledge and understanding
across many different types of games.
Figure 2
- 10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 02:49:09PM
via free access
43
Comparison of basketball knowledge between EG and CG at time t1
In EG mean value of total knowledge was 9.28 point/pupil after intervention (t1) and
7.78 point/pupil 8 months after intervention (t2) what is decrease by 12.5 % (p<0.01). The
significant decrease is supported by large effect size (d=1.1). Mean value of declarative
knowledge was 4.93 point/pupil in t1 and 3.62 in t2 what is a significant decrease by 18.72 %
(p<0.01). Calculated effect size was also large (d=1.1). Procedural knowledge decreased only
by 3.8% what was not significant (Fig. 3). However small to moderate effect size (d=0.3)
indicates that there might exist some practical significance of the data.
In CG mean value of total knowledge was 8.5 point/pupil in t1 and 7 point/pupil in t2
what is a decrease by 12.5 % (p<0.01). Effect size was large (d=0.8). Mean value of
declarative knowledge was 4.4 point/pupil in t1 and 2.98 in t2 what is a decrease by 20.36 %
(p<0.01). Large effect size (d=1.0) supports the decrease of basketball rules. Procedural
knowledge decreased only by 1.5% what was not significant (Fig. 4). There was no practical
significance confirmed by calculation of the effect size (d=0.1).
Results showed that during 8 months of not playing basketball pupils generally forgot
some basketball rules no matter what approach we have taught them. On the other hand, the
level of their procedural knowledge remained almost unchanged. A possible explanation why
procedural knowledge did not decrease could be due to a transfer within invasion games
(football, floorball, and handball) which pupils were playing in PE classes between test 1 and
test 2. It could be interesting to see whether and how much the tactical thinking and decision-
making changed in the game and not only in knowledge test.
When comparing EG knowledge changes to CG knowledge changes, EG declarative
knowledge decreased by 1.64 % less in comparison with CG. EG procedural knowledge
decreased by 2.3 % more in comparison with CG, on the contrary. Total knowledge changes
were same in both groups. According to the results, we can see that none of the groups
worsened more than the other one in 8-month period without playing basketball. Therefore,
we could state that both approaches have similar retention effects on declarative and
procedural knowledge in basketball.
- 10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 02:49:09PM
via free access
44
Figure 3
Comparison of basketball knowledge between time t1 and t2 in EG
Figure 4
Comparison of basketball knowledge between time t1 and t2 in CG
Conclusions and Recommendations
In general, we can confirm that the TGfU approach develops basketball knowledge more
than the technical approach. Retention effects of both approaches on basketball were similar,
declarative knowledge decreased but procedural knowledge did not change during 8 months
without basketball classes. For further research, we can recommend to apply more difficult
questions on tactical knowledge and more measuring tools for data collection. For practical
basketball settings at school, we could recommend to use game-based approaches, which
seem to be more effective in acquiring game knowledge and understanding.
References
1. ALLISON, S. and R. THORPE, 1997. A comparison of the effectiveness of two
approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus games
for understanding approach. In: British Journal of Physical Education, 28 (3), p. 9-13.
- 10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 02:49:09PM
via free access
45
2. BUTLER, J. I. and L.L. GRIFFIN, 2010. More teaching games for understanding:
Moving globally. Human Kinetics. ISBN-13: 978-0-7360-8334-8.
3. COHEN, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition).
Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1988.
4. GRIFFIN, L. and J. BUTLER, 2005. Teaching Games for Understanding: theory,
research, and practice. Champaign: Human Kinetics. ISBN 0-7360-4594-5.
5. GRIFFIN, L. L., J.L. OSLIN and S.A. MITCHELL, 1995. Two instructional approaches
to teaching net games. Poster session presented at the American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance National Convention, Portland, OR.
6. KIRK, D. and A. MACPHAIL, 2002. Teaching games for understanding and situated
learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. In: Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 21, p. 117-192.
7. MCBRIDE, R.E. and P. XIANG, 2004. Thoughtful decision making in physical
education: a modest proposal. In: Quest, 56, p. 337-354.
8. MITCHELL, S. A., L.L. GRIFFIN and J.L. OSLIN, 1995. Two instructional approaches
to teaching invasion games. Poster session presented at the American Alliance for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance National Convention, Portland, OR.
9. OSLIN, J. L. and S.A. MITCHELL, 2006. Game-centred approaches to teaching physical
education. In KIRK, D., MACDONALD, D., OSULLIVAN, M. 2006. Handbook of
teaching physical education. London: Sage, p. 627-651.
10. PIAGET, J., 1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: W. W. Norton.
11. PICKARD, A. and P. MAUDE, 2014. Teaching Physical Education Creatively: Learning
to teach in the primary school series. Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-65607-8.
12. POPELKA, J., 2012. Comparing different approaches to teaching volleyball on volleyball
theoretical knowledge of secondary school pupils (in Slovak). In Od výskumu k praxi
v športe. Zborník vedeckých prác. Bratislava: STU, p. 243-248. ISBN 978-80-227-3854-5.
13. TURNER, A. P. and T.J. MARTINEK, 1999. An investigation into TGFU: Effects on
skill, knowledge and game play. In: Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, p.
286-296.
- 10.1515/afepuc-2015-0005
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 02:49:09PM
via free access
