ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

This study evaluated the satisfaction of basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness, and novelty) in Year 5-6 students (10-12 years old) by an alternative and new sport, goubak, using two pedagogical models, i.e., sport education and direct instruction. A total of 110 students (57 boys and 53 girls) participated in a quasi-experimental study. To validate the implementation of both models, the lessons were video-recorded, and 50% of recordings were randomly selected and sent to two independent teachers/researchers outside the study with experience in both models to be evaluated using a checklist. The instrument used was the basic psychological needs in physical education scale, including the items of the novelty need satisfaction scale. Overall, 17 items were used to assess autonomy (4), competence (4), relatedness (4), and novelty (5) in general aspects related to physical education classes before and after the intervention. The anonymity and confidentiality of students were guaranteed at all times as well as ethics considerations. The data were analysed by the IBM SPSS Statistics office software package version 25.0. The performed analysis showed better results for Year 5 than Year 6 for both models; there were no differences by gender, which confirmed the goubak's coeducational character. Though there were no significant differences in the satisfaction of needs for both models, autonomy and competence in the direct instruction model were thwarted. The levels of relatedness and novelty were maintained in both groups. Intergroup differences were better for sport education in relation to autonomy and novelty. In conclusion, the obtained results suggest the positive influence of goubak (regardless of model used) and advantages of student-centred models.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Physical Education and Sport
®
(JPES), Vol 20 (Supplement issue 6), Art 436 pp 3212 – 3221, 2020
online ISSN: 2247 - 806X; p-ISSN: 2247 – 8051; ISSN - L = 2247 - 8051
© JPES
3212---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding Author: VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, E-mail: vmanso@ucm.es
Original Article
Teacher or student-centred model? Step-by-step analysis of basic psychological
needs of a new sport – goubak
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO
1
, CARLOS EVANGELIO
2
, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO
3
, SIXTO
GONZÁLEZ-VÍLLORA
4
1,3
Didactics of Languages, Arts and Physical education Department, Complutense University of Madrid, SPAIN
2,4
Didactic Musical, Plastic and Physical Expression Department, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca,
SPAIN.
Published online: November 30, 2020
(Accepted for publication: November 22, 2020)
DOI:10.7752/jpes.2020.s6436
Abstract:
This study evaluated the satisfaction of basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness, and
novelty) in Year 5–6 students (10–12 years old) by an alternative and new sport, goubak, using two pedagogical
models, i.e., sport education and direct instruction. A total of 110 students (57 boys and 53 girls) participated in a
quasi-experimental study. To validate the implementation of both models, the lessons were video-recorded, and
50% of recordings were randomly selected and sent to two independent teachers/researchers outside the study
with experience in both models to be evaluated using a checklist. The instrument used was the basic
psychological needs in physical education scale, including the items of the novelty need satisfaction scale.
Overall, 17 items were used to assess autonomy (4), competence (4), relatedness (4), and novelty (5) in general
aspects related to physical education classes before and after the intervention. The anonymity and confidentiality
of students were guaranteed at all times as well as ethics considerations. The data were analysed by the IBM
SPSS Statistics office software package version 25.0. The performed analysis showed better results for Year 5
than Year 6 for both models; there were no differences by gender, which confirmed the goubak’s coeducational
character. Though there were no significant differences in the satisfaction of needs for both models, autonomy
and competence in the direct instruction model were thwarted. The levels of relatedness and novelty were
maintained in both groups. Intergroup differences were better for sport education in relation to autonomy and
novelty. In conclusion, the obtained results suggest the positive influence of goubak (regardless of model used)
and advantages of student-centred models.
Key words: pedagogical models, sport pedagogy, innovative sports, coeducation, gender equity.
Introduction
In the last years, physical education (PE) teaching-learning has highlighted its potential for developing
social and personal values, linked to its potential among students (Kumar, 2017). Moreover, collaboration among
professionals enforces the adaptability and feasibility of different practices in different and new contexts (Quay
et al., 2016). In this sense, some PE research trends about teaching process have encouraged the student
relevance and involvement in the lessons through the use of different methodologies like the pedagogical
models, as well as alternative contents. On the one hand, in relation to the methods implemented, teacher-centred
approaches have been used traditionally in PE, like the direct instruction model (DIM; Metzler, 2017). DIM aims
to promote student homework behaviour through explicit instruction, support and commitment to successful
practice, focusing on teacher-student interaction (Magliaro at al., 2005). In this model, the teacher is responsible
for making decisions during the lessons, such as the organization of groups, the beginning and end of activities,
or the initiative of students (Pereira et al., 2015). Moreover, Metzler (2017) underlines that model key is to
provide the student as time of supervised activities as possible, in order to the teacher could supervise the
practice and support feedback and corrections constantly. Moreover, this model, as well as traditional teaching
methodologies, have been associated with the technique-based approaches that not allow the tactical
understanding of the game (Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006), and develop inflexible techniques non-transferable
to various and real game situations (Holt et al., 2006). Finally, some research about DIM show its effectiveness
when the goal is to learn movement skills and concepts (Metzler, 2017). Conversely, DIM usually not enhance
psycho-social outcomes, such as the satisfaction of basic psychological needs (BPNs; Ryan & Deci, 2017) for its
features (Perlman, 2011; Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004). However, among the consolidated models described by
Metzler (2017), there are others student-centred models like sport education model (SEM), which is able to
empower and relinquish responsibility from the teacher to the student. The SEM was introduced in the United
States of America in 1994 by Daryl Siedentop, influenced by the Sport for All concept developed in Europe and
supported by UNESCO. The main objective is to provide real and rewarding sport experiences forming literate,
enthusiastic and competent students, and its main features are as follows (Siedentop et al., 2020): (1) Affiliation:
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, CARLOS EVANGELIO, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO, SIXTO GONZÁLEZ-
VÍLLORA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
3213
students are part of a team during all lessons and develop different roles (e.g., captain, coach or referee) to
enhance their responsibility (Wallhead et al., 2010); (2) Seasons: usually longer than traditional teaching units
(18-24 lessons; Siedentop et al., 2020); (3) Formal competition: in the season, different teams train and compete
among them; (4) Record keeping: the data collection of players and teams is carried out to keep the class
informed and to increase motivation (e.g., scoring, fouls or wins); (5) Final event: season ends with a final event
to know the teams ranking; and (6) Festivity: to celebrate the season closure, foster teams, students motivation
and enjoyment, favouring sports culture. These SEM features and purposes have been associated with the
improvement of psycho-social variables (Chu & Zhang, 2018), providing input on the satisfaction of the
students’ BPNs. For example, the autonomy improves with the assignment of responsibilities to the student in
the team (MacPhail et al., 2008; Smither & Zhu, 2011); the relatedness improves through affiliation and team
problem solving (Perlman, 2010; Smither & Zhu, 2011); and the competence improves when each student plays
a role within the team while improving personal skills (Méndez-Giménez et al., 2015; Perlman & Goc-Karp,
2010). However, other studies suggest possible limitations to the relatedness and autonomy due to the high social
status of students (Brock et al., 2009). Finally, it has been considered another potential need for its effects on the
students’ motivation: novelty (González-Cutre et al., 2020). In this regard, it is necessary to provide more
arguments when studying BPNs including novelty. On the other hand, the pedagogical content implemented
could improve this sense of novelty. The concept of sport in the SEM encompasses a wider range of physical
activities beyond traditional sports exclusively (Hastie et al., 2013), because of the lens of Sport for All and the
need to link this model with alternative sports (Evangelio et al., 2018) makes it necessary to apply with them.
There are not many works in the scientific literature that relate alternative sports and SEM (e.g., duni,
kickboxing or ultimate; Evangelio et al., 2018). Therefore, in the present study, goubak® (Goubaksport, n.d.) has
been implemented as an alternative sport, with the purpose of exploiting some values such as the egalitarian
educational sport created from and for the school, ensuring the same initial level of knowledge of all students.
‘Throughout the years, sport and physical activities have constantly been adapted, reinvented, or even created
from scratch’ (Cohen & Welty, 2015, p. 521). In this case, goubak sport has been created from scratch, and its
three elements (playing field, goal and ball) have never been seen before, favouring the same level of knowledge
and experience offered by a new sport to the students (Manso-Lorenzo et al., 2018). Its internal game logic
implies a greater tactical awareness of the players through the ‘4Rs model’ (Hopper, 2003) and some of its rules
such as mixed teams, regulated opposition or the peculiar scoring system itself (it allows the addition and
subtraction of points) support the Sport for All basis. In light of the above, the main objective of this study is to
evaluate the satisfaction of the BPNs (autonomy, competence, relatedness and novelty) in students when it is
used an alternative and new sport, goubak, according to the features of two models (SEM or DIM). The purpose
is to provide results along the lines of other studies that demonstrate the satisfaction of BPNs thanks to a student-
centred model as opposed to the reduction of these needs with a teacher-centred model. It is also intended to
determine to what extent goubak can have an influence independently of the pedagogical model to be used.
Material & methods
Participants
Table 1
. Sample.
EG1 EG2
5ºA (T1) 6ºA (T1) 5ºB (T1) 6ºB (T2) 6ºC (T2)
Boys 12 12 10 14 9 57
Girls 12 10 14 8 9 53
Total 24 22 (46) 24 22 18 (64) 110
Note. EG1=Experimental Group 1 (Sport Education Model); EG2= Experimental Group 2
(Direct Instruction Model); T1=Teacher 1; T2=Teacher 2.
A quasi-experimental study of non-equivalent groups has been carried out because the sample was not
randomized (Ato et al., 2013). A Pretest, Postest with two experimental groups comparison group design is used.
To this end, a cooperative research has been carried out among PE teachers and university teacher-researchers
through teamwork. This fact has enabled to improve the whole process of designing and implementing
educational programs in two experimental groups. The study sample consisted of 110 PE students, aged 10-12
years (M=10.7; SD=0.6), of which 57 were boys (51.8%) and 53 girls (48.2%). The participants belonged to five
groups: two fifth and three sixth grades (Table 1). One group of each grade participated in a SEM unit
(experimental group 1, EG1; n=46), and the others participated in a DIM unit (experimental group 2, EG2;
n=64). These grades were chosen for their suitability for implementing SEM in order to maturity level
(González-Víllora et al., 2020). Also, none of the participants had previously developed a training program or
unit on goubak. Both groups had not received SEM unit before, but had received units based on traditional
styles, combined with other student-centred styles (e.g., guided discovery, reciprocal teaching) before to the
study. The units were implemented by two teachers (T1 and T2) from the same school, located in the southern of
the Community of Madrid (Spain), both with more than 10 years of experience in PE teaching, and both
involved during all the design and implementation process to avoid differences on the implementation of each
one. T1 was in charge of teaching groups of Year 5 and one of Year 6, and T2 was in charge of other groups of
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, CARLOS EVANGELIO, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO, SIXTO GONZÁLEZ-
VÍLLORA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
3214
Year 6. The assignment of the experimental group 1 (EG1) and experimental group 2 (EG2) was according to
two variables: (1) teacher training (T1 had received previous training on SEM and have experience on both
models and goubak, while T2 have experience in a conventional methods, DIM and goubak); and (2) the
schedule incompatibilities to implement all units for the same teacher. The procedure in which the groups of
SEM were assigned guarantees, at least, a comparison between the two models in each educational level (at least
a Year 5 and 6 grades in EG1 and EG2).
Procedure
The study was composed of three phases. First, the teamwork created both implementations,
emphasizing the time-consuming process of elaborating specific materials to develop the SEM this type of
methodology (Sinelnikov, 2009). With the units designed, the school leadership team and the school council
were informed, in order to obtain the necessary permissions, as well as the parent’s permissions (Faden et al.,
1986). In the second phase, the implementation of goubak in the PE required an in-depth knowledge of its rules
by teachers. Their rules were clear to teach in both models since an integrated way (see deeply in Manso-
Lorenzo et al, 2018): (a) two mixed teams of five players each facing each other around a single central goal
(three posts placed in an equilateral triangle on the side one meter inside of a circular goal area); (b) each player
has up to five seconds of individual possession to pass the ball to a teammate; (c) the team has up to five passes
to score; (d) the way to score is to pass the ball cleanly through the goal to a teammate located on the other side
who have to catch the ball before fall to the floor, and without being intercepted by the opponent; (e) all the
passes or kicks of the ball have to be made in a vertical way for the shape of the ball (flattened lozenge-like ball);
(f) the defending team can only intercept the ball when it crosses the goal (to avoid that the attacking team
score), not before (attacking team could pass the ball if they do not try to score), and thus facilitate the
participation of all students. These rules were carried out through the requirements or features of each model
(Table 2): SEM (e.g., longer lesson plans than traditional ones; pre-season-formal competition-final
phase/festivity, or progressive transfer of autonomy from teacher to student) and DIM (e.g., teacher-centred
model, constant feedback from teacher to students, or more conventional length of the lesson plans). The
duration of both lesson plans aims at checking the effects of goubak according to the characteristics and
requirements of pedagogical models. All lessons were applied in the playground, with a length of 45 minutes
each/three times per week. And a third and no less important phase, data analysis was processed with the help of
statistical programs.
Table 2.
Features of the two instructional approaches.
SEM DIM
Contents
of
each lesson
Preseason
1.
Unit explanation, students create mixed teams (5-6 players
each other. 8 teams).
2.
Delivery dossiers to each team/choose roles.
3.
Ball manipulation by playing modified games.
4.
Kicking ball by playing modified games.
5.
Learn the ‘Regulated Opposition’ rule by playing modified
games.
6.
Learn the ‘Advantage’ rule by playing modified games.
7.
Learn to passes by playing modified games/friendly games.
8.
Learn to score by playing modified games/friendly games.
1.
Video presentation. Familiarization games.
2. Exercises to learn how to pass the ball.
3. Exercises to learn how to kick the ball.
4. Exercises to learn how to score.
5. Exercises to learn ‘Regulated Opposition’ rule.
6. Exercises to learn ‘Advantage' rule.
7. Actual game situation without the ‘Advantage’
rule.
8. Actual game situation with the ‘Advantage’
rule.
9. Actual game situation with no negative points.
10. Actual game situation with scoreboard.
11. Actual game situation with all the rules.
12. Actual game situation with all the rules.
Season
9-16. Two consecutive 7’games /one refereeing Duty
team/one team training while others play or referee.
Final event/festivity
17. Playoffs / teams who don't play cheer.
18. Final / teams who don't play cheer / awards ceremony.
Student’
rol
Participant and spectator of initial explanations.
Create his/her own team, name, flag, motto team and chooses
his/her roles.
Active participant and decision maker (on groups and
individually). The students perform the following roles:
player, physical trainer; coach, referee, scorer, captain.
Spectator of the explanations.
Passive participant and receive constant teacher’
feedback and corrections.
Accepts teacher-created teams.
Teacher’
rol
Class leader, develop initial explanation.
Explain roles, work area, material.
Supervise and mediate. Guide work on roles in the first
sessions and support progressive student autonomy during the
lessons.
Responsible for decisions made during the session,
such as the organization of groups, the beginning
and end of activities, or the initiative of students.
Materials
1 dossier/team (instructions cards on the students’ roles; cards
with the exercises and games to be performed by the physical
trainer and coach; cards to data record by the scorer when
his/her team referees like Duty Team; goubak rules).
1 self-built flag per team.
3 class Posters with team names, roles, game schedule and
results.
1 goubak set per team (pitch, goal, and ball).
1 goubak scoreboard for the games.
1 goubak set per team (playing field, goal, and
ball).
1 goubak scoreboard for the games.
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, CARLOS EVANGELIO, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO, SIXTO GONZÁLEZ-
VÍLLORA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
3215
Validating the implementation
Key to the study of the validity of the applied program is to follow the recommendations of Hastie and
Casey (2014, p. 423) such as: ‘(a) a rich description of the curricular elements of the unit, (b) a detailed
validation of the application of the model, and (c) a detailed description of the context of the program’.
To validate the implementation of both models, the lessons were recorded and 50% were randomly
selected to be validated by a checklist by two teachers/researchers outside the study, with experience on both
models. It used the items adapted from Hastie et al. (2013), where six items for SEM and other four for DIM are
reflected (Table 3). For their completion, they reflected "Yes" or "No" in each item. The answers of both
evaluators were 100% positive.
Table 3
. Checklist items (adapted from Hastie et al. 2013).
1. Group of students go to a designated home area and begin warming up with that group.
2. Students warm up as a whole class under the direction of the teacher.
3. Students practice together with their group/team under the direction of a peer leader.
4. Students practice individually, or in small groups under the direction of the teacher.
5. Students remain a part of easily identifiable groups throughout the lesson and throughout
different tasks.
6. Student grouping throughout the lesson is variable across tasks.
7. Performance records are kept by students.
8. Students perform specialized tasks within their group/team.
9. Student performance scores count toward a formal and public scoring system.
10. Student performance scores are not recorded or are recorded in private.
*Items 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 allude to SEM features; items 2, 4, 6, 10 allude to DIM features.
Data collection
Basic psychological needs: in order to analyse the area of affective-social learning (Kirk, 2013), the
Basic Psychological Needs in Physical Education Scale (BPN-PE) was used (Menéndez & Fernández-Río,
2018). The items of novelty from the he latest version of the Novelty Need Satisfaction Scale (González-Cutre &
Sicilia, 2019) were added to check it. Overall, 17 items were obtained that assessed autonomy (4), competence
(4), relatedness (4) and novelty (5) in general aspects related to PE classes. The answers provided on 7-points
scales (1=totally disagree and 7=totally agree). The instrument was explained to the students, noting the
introductory phrase "In my PE lessons..." to be able to respond to each of the items. A Pretest and Postest were
realized before and after unit. Anonymity of responses and student peace of mind in completing the test was
guaranteed at all times.
Data analysis
The data was analysed by the IBM SPSS Statistics office software package version 25.0. A significance
value of p <.05 was established. First, the reliability value was determined using the Cronbach Alpha of the
instrument used in the data collection. Then the descriptive statistics were collected. From the initial sample of
115 students, five students were discarded for missing several sessions. Since this was a large sample (Chatterjee
& Lahiri, 2017) and there were no statistical differences between the two groups through Levene's test for
homogeneity calculation, the parametric tests were used. The Mauchly sphericity test was applied, assuming the
spherical data to be p>.05 (Winer et al., 1991). Preliminary analyses with t-tests for independent samples have
been made to check the behaviour of course and gender on the study variables in each group. The effect size has
been calculated according to Cohen (1988), who classified it as small, medium and large (.20, .50 and .80).
Subsequently, an intra-group analysis has been carried out through a general linear model of repeated means to
check the evolution of Pretest and Postest in each group. In this case, F-values to r have been converted to
calculate the effect size (Field, 2017) and according to Cohen (1992), it could be small, medium and large (.10,
.30 and .50). To finish with an inter-group analysis through a multivariate general linear model that compares the
Postest measures between both groups. Precisely, multivariate analysis has been used based on studies that
recommend its use for larger samples (Barton et al., 2016).
Results
Cronbach's Alpha obtained to corroborate the reliability of the BPNs scale in PE was .910, according to
the values shown in Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia (2019). The preliminary analysis carried out through the t-tests
for independent samples analysed course and gender on the study groups. The results have been analysed in
order to (1) explore the differences among students’ grades and genders; (2) assess the satisfaction of the BPNs
with each model; and (3) compare the differences between both models after their implementation.
With respect to the grade, the SEM students in Year 5 grade showed values of autonomy in the Pretest
(p=.022) and Postest (p=.035) significantly higher than Year 6 students. With regard to the relatedness, Year 5
students showed significantly higher values than in the Year 6 in the Postest (p=.029). Also, it was reported
significantly higher values in SEM novelty in Year 5 in Pretest (p=.011) and Postest (p=0.006), with respect to
Year 6. No significant differences were found in the competence. On the other hand, with regard to the DIM,
students in the Year 5 showed significantly higher values in Postest autonomy (p=.022), Pretest novelty
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, CARLOS EVANGELIO, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO, SIXTO GONZÁLEZ-
VÍLLORA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
3216
(p=0.010) and Postest novelty (p=.000) than in Year 6 grade. No significant differences were found in the
competence neither relatedness. There were no significant differences in terms by gender, only significant values
in Pretest novelty (p=.020) with better results on girls of SEM group.
Table 4.
Preliminary analysis through T-test by course and gender variables.
SEM DIM
Pretest Postest Pretest Postest
M
(SD)
t
p
d
M
(SD)
t
p
d
M
(SD)
t
p
d
M
(SD)
t
p
d
Autonomy
5
th
5.66
(.80)
2.36
.022*
.70
5.54
(.81)
2.18
.035*
.65
5.55
(1.05)
1.95
.055
.52
4.88
(1.37)
2.35
.022*
.60
6
th
5.04
(.97)
4.90
(1.13)
4.96
(1.23)
4.07
(1.31)
Competence
5
th
4.90
(.83)
-.57
.566
.17
4.61
(1.20)
-1.77
.083
.52
5.28
(1.25)
-.39
.693
.10
4.88
(1.59)
.29
.770
.07
6
th
5.05
(.93)
5.26
(1.26)
5.39
(.95)
4.77
(1.36)
Relatedness
5
th
5.77
(1.17)
.54
.586
.16
5.73
(.94)
2.25
.029*
.66
5.25
(1.05)
-.88
.379
.23
5.20
(1.29)
.11
.907
.03
6
th
5.60
(.87)
5.11
(.93)
5.50
(1.16)
5.16
(1.32)
Novelty
5
th
5.73
(.82)
2.65
.011*
.78
6.03
(.92)
2.92
.006*
.86
5.08
(.97)
2.64
.010*
.71
5.30
(1.16)
3.76
.000*
.99
6
th
4.94
(1.17)
5.14
(1.13)
4.31
(1.20)
4.05
(1.36)
Autonomy
B 5.23
(1.00)
-.98
.330
.30
5.08
(1.14)
-1.08
.286
.32
4.97
(1.39)
-
1.35
.180
.34
4.36
(1.45)
-.08
.929
.02
G 5.51
(.84)
5.40
(.87)
5.37
(.95)
4.39
(1.32)
Competence
B 5.00
(.92)
.17
.863
.06
4.95
(1.37)
.19
.849
.06
5.50
(1.02)
1.08
.282
.28
5.05
(1.32)
1.29
.200
.32
G 4.95
(.83)
4.88
(1.16)
5.20
(1.11)
4.59
(1.53)
Relatedness
B 5.66
(.91)
-.16
.874
.05
5.47
(.89)
.27
.783
.08
5.37
(1.21)
-.21
.831
.05
5.37
(1.30)
1.16
.248
.29
G 5.71
(1.16)
5.39
(1.09)
5.43
(1.04)
5.00
(1.29)
Novelty
B 5.00
(1.17)
-
2.42
.020*
.72
5.42
(1.17)
-1.17
.247
.35
4.36
(1.32)
1.61
.112
.40
4.26
(1.56)
-1.43
.156
.35
G
5.73
(.80)
5.80
(1.02)
4.83
(.99)
4.76
(1.24)
Note: SEM=Sport Education Model; DIM=Direct Instruction Model; M
=Mean; SD=Standard Deviation; *p=significance <
.05; d=effect size; B=Boys; G=Girls.
Table 5 shows the results of the Pre/Postest comparison in order to the satisfaction of the BPNs for each
of the two experimental groups (SEM and DIM). The analysis did not report significant differences for SEM
with similar values among Pretest and Postest, but novelty increase moderately (p=.073). However, the use of
DIM thwarted the satisfaction of autonomy (p=.000) and competence (p=.000) on the students. Relatedness and
novelty did not show significant differences for DIM.
Table 5
. Intra
-
Group analysis through the general linear model of repeated means.
SEM
DIM
Pretest
Postest
Pretest
Postest
M
(SD)
M
(SD)
F
p
r
M
(SD)
M
(SD)
F
p
r
Autonomy
5.37
(.93)
5.25
(1.03)
.783 .381 .13 5.16
(1.20)
4.25
(1.34)
44.32 .000* .67
Competence
4.95
(.88)
4.93
(1.28)
.019 .891 .02 5.35
(1.08)
4.75
(1.43)
15.54 .000* .47
Relatedness
5.68
(.98)
5.47
(.99)
1.50
.227
.18
5.45
(1.03)
5.26
(1.22)
2.30
.135
.20
Novelty
5.36
(1.09)
5.63
(1.14)
3.40
.073
.26
4.51
(1.15)
4.35
(1.36)
1.11
.295
.14
Note: SEM=Sport Education Model; DIM=Direct Instruction Model; M=Mean; SD=Standard
Deviation; *p=significance < .05; r=effect size.
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, CARLOS EVANGELIO, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO, SIXTO GONZÁLEZ-
VÍLLORA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
3217
Table 6 reflects the contrasts of customized hypotheses, showing the value of significance in the
contrast results (K-matrix) by performing a univariate analysis of variance to compare the two experimental
groups, SEM and DIM, for each of the needs in the Postest. The students showed better results for autonomy
(p=.001) and novelty (p=.000) with SEM, but not for competence and relatedness.
Table 6
. Inter-Group analysis through the multivariate general linear model.
Helmert´contrasts
Contrast estimation
P
Partial eta squared
SEM vs DIM
Postest
Autonomy
.860
.001*
.106
Competence
.108
.686
.002
Relatedness .257 .263 .012
Novelty 1.084 .000* .147
Note: SEM=Sport Education Model; DIM=Direct Instruction Model; *p=significance < .05.
Discussion
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the satisfaction of BPNs 5
th
and 6
th
grade students, when
goubak is used according to the features of the SEM or DIM. The results have been discussed in order to their
analysis facilitating their understanding: (1) to explore the differences among students’ grades and genders; (2)
to assess the satisfaction of the BPNs with each model; and (3) to compare the differences between both models
after their implementation.
Firstly, comparing both grades, the analysis stated better results in the satisfaction levels of autonomy,
relatedness and novelty with the SEM in Year 5 students versus those in Year 6
in the Postest, while they only
showed these differences in autonomy and novelty with the DIM. However, some of these differences were
observed in Pretest too (regarding to autonomy and novelty on SEM, and novelty on DIM), so these results
should be interpreted carefully. Finally, the differences in the relatedness of Year 5 students in comparison with
Year 6, could be influenced by arising some conflicts during the lessons observed in relation to the Year 6
students’ roles performance, in the same way that the review of Wallhead and O’sullivan (2005), or by the
pressure that some students suffer performing some roles within their team (Rocamora et al., 2019).
According to the students’ gender, there were no differences between both genders on the satisfaction of
the BPNs, contradicting the results of other studies which showed differences on the satisfaction of autonomy
(López-García et al., 2018) or competence (Meroño et al., 2016). This suggests that goubak rules and
coeducational character, with mixed participation or the way to defend during the game (Manso-Lorenzo et al.,
2018), could favour or maintain gender equality and opportunities (Parri & Ceciliani, 2019), unlike other studies
focused on more traditional team sports that gave a greater role to boys (e.g., Azzarito et al., 2006; ). Moreover,
according to Parker and Curtner-Smith (2012, p. 492) 'something more is needed from the teacher if gains in
gender equity are to be made', so new sports should be introduced to break the hegemonic masculinity linked to
more traditional sports (Connell, 2008). In this way, a more homogeneous level of expertise can be achieved
among players.
Secondly, the results showed no significant differences in the levels of satisfaction of the BPNs with the
SEM, differing from the results shown in the systematic review of Chu and Zhang (2018), where the authors
reflected that SEM implementation contributed to improve autonomy (e.g., Perlman & Goc Karp, 2010; Smither
& Zhu, 2011), competence (e.g., Cuevas et al., 2015; Spittle & Byrne, 2009), and relatedness (e.g., Méndez-
Giménez et al., 2015; Perlman, 2010; 2011). In this study, this may be due to three reasons: students' previous
experience with some student-centred teaching styles (previous studies highlighted the autonomy and
responsibility of students who previously tended to participate in teacher-centred models; Smither & Zhu, 2011);
the way in which groups were created (students choose their partners and this could not satisfy novelty or the
creation of new friendships as in the study of Perlman, 2010); and/or the influence of the implementation of a
new and different content (goubak) which could develop lack of students’ knowledge about it and over-
dependency of the teacher to learn some rules or specific skills. Nevertheless, there are similarities with the study
of Brock et al. (2009) in interpreting possible limitations of autonomy and relatedness due to the social status of
the student; with the study of Perlman (2010) according to did not show differences on competence; or with
Cuevas et al. (2015) who only found substantive differences on competence.
However, present study results reported that the autonomy and competence of the students were
thwarted with the DIM. These findings differed from other studies (e.g., Hastie et al., 2013; Pereira et al., 2015)
which stated that DIM could contribute at the development of students competence due to this model supports as
practice of different skills as possible (Metzler, 2017). On the one hand, the role of the teachers could explain the
relationship between a controlling attitude and the thwart of the students’ autonomy or competence, because the
influence of the teacher control during PE classes through DIM could affect the students' psychological well-
being (Bartholomew et al., 2018; Haerens et al., 2015). On the other hand, the thwart of competence may be due
to the influence with the motivational climate of the tasks during this model (Kalaja, et al., 2009), as opposed to
the positive climate of the SEM (Elliot & Conroy, 2005; Moller & Elliot, 2006; Perlman, 2010). Finally, it is
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, CARLOS EVANGELIO, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO, SIXTO GONZÁLEZ-
VÍLLORA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
3218
necessary highlight the difference of the number of lessons intended for the implementation of each model
(longer lesson plans in SEM than DIM), and thus could influence the time to develop some learnings of the
content, and therefore competence on students, as indicated by Casey and MacPhail (2018) and Hastie et al.
(2014).
According to the satisfaction of relatedness and novelty with the DIM, there were not observed
differences. The use of goubak could influence that there were no greater thwart of these needs with the DIM
because the students learned a new content (novelty) and participated in mixed groups (relatedness). The use of a
new content maybe favours novelty in students (González-Cutre & Sicilia, 2019) and in line with Azzarito
(2006), it is important to offer coeducational contexts and equal opportunities environments. Contexts that can be
generated thanks to mixed teams and goubak rules (Manso-Lorenzo et al., 2018). And this mixed teams can help
combat gender stereotypes (Petracovschi et al., 2011).
Lastly, the findings found when comparing both models showed significant differences in satisfaction
levels in autonomy and novelty in favour of SEM (table 6). The responsibility transference through roles within
the team in the SEM was a key strategy to promote autonomy in the student body (MacPhail et al., 2008;
Smither & Zhu, 2011). This may have led to a more active involvement of students (García-López et al., 2012).
Moreover, increased the sense of novelty perceived when experimenting this responsibility and methodology
(González-Cutre & Sicilia, 2019). Furthermore, in this study the content applied helped to not thwart the novelty,
and with an innovative methodology for the students, it was satisfied the need of novelty, as Fernández-Río and
Menéndez-Santurio (2017) pointed out in their study about kickboxing applied since SEM hybridization.
Concerning to the comparison of relatedness and competence, it is observed that there were not
differences between both models although the SEM had better results than DIM, and thus contrast with the
previous studies which showed significant differences between both models (e.g., Burgueño et al., 2018;
Fernández-Río et al., 2017). Despite the fact that DIM thwarted the students’ competence, there were not
founded major differences with SEM because the students of DIM group started with a higher level of
competence, decreasing this level considerably while it was maintained on students of SEM group. The
responsibility acquired with autonomy, tasks students-assigned and roles could influence on the students’
competence, as Fernández-Río and Menéndez-Santurio (2017) reported in their study. On the other hand, the
lack of differences on relatedness was motivated by the not increasing of this need with SEM like in other
studies (Burgueño et al., 2018), for some conflicts aroused among students of this group (Wallhead &
O’sullivan, 2005), or the pressure of some students performing some roles (Rocamora et al., 2019).
Conclusions
In conclusion, some results of the present study differ notably from previous literature, and thus enforce
the prospective of the study on this topic. Firstly, it was found better results in 5
th
grade than 6
th
grade students,
although the fact that positive data was found also in Pretest makes it cautious about this.
Although the BPNs were not satisfied in either of the two models analyzed, the levels of relatedness and
novelty were maintained in both groups (SEM and DIM), perhaps due to the influence of an innovative sport like
goubak, which promotes equity and mixed participation. Maybe, the fact that students themselves make their
own teams during the season in the SEM, has avoided making new and different relationships, with the
consequent lack of satisfaction of novelty in this model. While in the DIM, its own features and supposing the
sport like an unknown content for the students requiring more teacher participation, the autonomy and
competence of the students has could been thwarted. Therefore, it could be considered the influence of goubak in
both models and the preferential use of SEM for the implementation of this new sport for PE classes.
According to the limitations of this study, there were detected some of them: (1) despite both
implementations were designed to accomplish the features of each model and the purpose of the present study,
the difference in the length of the lesson plans could condition some results; (2) the length of the sample for both
models were different; and/or (3) both teachers participated in all design and were informed about all
considerations, but their personal features could influence on the results. In this sense, future research should
replicate the intervention taking account these limitations, as well as the relevance to the teacher and/or the
students know the content and methodologies previously, in order to compare how these facts could affect at the
analyzed variables. Finally, other factors could be modified like the group configuration, alternate roles within
the teams and/or apply or hybridize different models, in order to deepen the goubak teaching-learning.
Acknowledgements
To Campohermoso school educational community, especially the students. To our friends and
colleagues of the goubak team.
References
Ato, M., López-García, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013). A classification system for research designs in
psychology. Annals of psychology, 29(3), 103–1059. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, CARLOS EVANGELIO, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO, SIXTO GONZÁLEZ-
VÍLLORA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
3219
Azzarito, L., Solmon, M. A., & Harrison Jr, L. (2006). “... If I had a choice, I would....” a feminist
poststructuralist perspective on girls in physical education. Research Quarterly for exercise and sport,
77(2), 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2006.10599356
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Mouratidis, A., Katartzi, E., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Vlachopoulos, S.
(2018). Beware of your teaching style: A school-year long investigation of controlling teaching and
student motivational experiences. Learning and instruction, 53, 50–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.006
Barton, M., Yeatts, P. E., Henson, R. K., & Martin, S. B. (2016). Moving beyond univariate Postest-hoc testing
in exercise science: A primer on descriptive discriminate analysis. Research quarterly for exercise and
sport, 87(4), 365–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2016.1213352
Brock, S. J., Rovengo, I., & Oliver, K. L. (2009). The influence of student status on student interactions and
experiences during a sport education unit. Physical education and sport pedagogy, 14(4), 355–375.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980802400494
Burgueño, R., Cueto-Martín, B., Morales-Ortiz, E., Silva, P. C., & Medina-Casaubón, J. (2018). Clarifying the
influence of sport education on basic psychological need satisfaction in high school students.
Motricidade, 14(2–3), 48–58.
Casey, A., & MacPhail, A. (2018). Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education. Physical
education and sport pedagogy, 23(3), 294–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1429588
Chatterjee, A., & Lahiri, I. (2017). Brand equity, brand loyalty and consumers’ Willingness to pay: A linear
approach of measurement. International journal of research in business studies, 2(1), 23–41.
Chu, T. L., & Zhang, T. (2018). Motivational processes in Sport Education programs among high school
students: A systematic review. European physical education review, 24(3), 372–394.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X17751231
Cohen, A., & Welty, J. (2015). Quidditch: Impacting and benefiting participants in a non-fictional manner.
Journal of sport and social issues, 39(6) 521–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723514561549
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.112.1.155
Connell, R. (2008). Masculinity construction and sports in boys’ education: A framework for thinking about the
issue. Sport, education and society, 13(2), 131-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320801957053
Cuevas, R., García-López, L. M., & Contreras, O. (2015). Influence of the Sport Education Model in the
psychological basic needs. Sports psychology notebooks, 15(2), 155–162.
Elliot, A. J., & Conroy, D. E. (2005). Beyond the dichotomous model of achievement goals in sport and exercise
psychology. Sport and exercise psychology review, 1(1), 17–25.
Evangelio, C., Sierra-Díaz, J., González-Víllora, S., & Fernández-Río, J. (2018). The Sport Education model in
elementary and secondary education: a systematic review. Movement, 24(3), 931–946.
https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.81689
Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., & King, N. M. P. (1986). A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford
Universtiy Press.
Fernández-Rio, J., & Menendez-Santurio, J. I. (2017). Teachers and students’ perceptions of a hybrid Sport
Education and Teaching for Personal and Social Responsibility learning unit. Journal of teaching in
physical education, 36(2), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0077
Fernández-Río, J., Méndez-Giménez, A., & Méndez-Alonso, D. (2017). Effects of two instructional approaches,
Sport Education and Direct Instruction, on secondary education students’ psychological response. Sport
TK: Euroamerican journal of sport sciences, 6(2), 9–20.
Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
García-López, L. M., Gutiérrez-Díaz, D., González-Víllora, S., & Valero-Valenzuela, A. (2012). Changes in
emphaty, assertiveness and social relations due to implementation of the sport education model. Journal
of sport psychology, 21(2), 321–330.
González-Cutre, D., & Sicilia, A. (2019). The importance of novelty satisfaction for multiple positive outcomes
in physical education. European physical education review, 25(3), 859–875.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X18783980
González-Cutre, D., Romero-Elías, M., Jiménez-Loaisa, A., Beltrán-Carrillo, V. J., & Hagger, M. S. (2020).
Testing the need for novelty as a candidate need in basic psychological needs theory. Motivation and
emotion, 44, 295–314.
González-Víllora, S., Evangelio, C., Guijarro, E., & Rocamora, I. (2020). Innovating with the Sport Education
model: If you are looking for different results, do not educate as usual. Aula Magna-McGraw-Hill.
Goubaksport. (n.d.). Goubaksport. https://goubaksport.com/
Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do perceived autonomy
supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education students’ motivational experiences
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, CARLOS EVANGELIO, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO, SIXTO GONZÁLEZ-
VÍLLORA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
3220
through unique pathways? Distinguishing between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology
of sport and exercise, 16, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013
Hastie, P. A., & Casey, A. (2014). Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: A guide for
future investigations. Journal of teaching in physical education, 33, 422–431.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0141
Hastie, P. A., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid sport education games for understanding
model on one teacher and his students. Physical education and sport pedagogy, 11(1), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980500466813
Hastie, P. A., Calderón, A., Rolim, R., & Guarino, A. (2013). The development of kill and knowledge during a
sport education season of track and field athletics. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 84(3),
336–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2013.812001
Hastie, P. A., Sinelnikov, O., Wallhead, T., & Layne, T. (2014). Perceived and actual motivational climate of a
mastery involving sport education season. European physical education review, 20(2), 215–228.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X14524858
Holt, J. E., Ward, P., & Wallhead. T. L. (2006). The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in
young adult soccer players. Physical education and sport pedagogy, 11(2), 101–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980600708270
Hooper, T. (2003). Four Rs for tactical awareness: Applying game performance assessment in net/wall games.
Teaching elementary physical education, 14(2), 16–21.
Kalaja, S., Jaakkola, T., Watt, A., Liukkonen, J., & Ommundsen, Y. (2009). The associations between seventh
grades finish students’ motivational climate, perceived competence, self-determined motivation, and
fundamental movement skills. European physical education review, 15(3), 315–335.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X09364714
Kirk, D. (2013). Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational philosophy and
theory, 45(9), 973–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2013.785352
Kumar, R. (2017). Impact of physical education and sport in promoting social values among young. The
international journal of indian psychology 4(2), 84–87.
López-García, J., Sánchez-Gallardo, I., Burgueño, R., & Medina-Casaubón, J. (2018). Autonomy support and
perception of the Sport Education features in compulsory secondary students. Influence of a Sport
Education season. Journal of sport and health research, 10(1), 191–202.
MacPhail, A., Gorely, T., Kirk, D., & Kinchin, G. (2008). Children’s experiences of fun and enjoyment during a
season of sport education. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 79(3) 344–355.
Magliaro, S. G., Lockee, B. B., & Burton, J. K. (2005). Direct instruction revisited: Akey model for instructional
technology. Educational technology research and development, 53, 41–55.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504684
Manso-Lorenzo, V., Fraile-García, J., Cambronero-Resta, M., & Manso-Lorenzo, J. (2018). Goubak as an
alternative sport of collaboration-opposition (regulated): didactic offer for Physical Education in
Primary. ESHPA – Education, Sport, Health and Physical Activity, 2(3), 322–340.
Méndez-Giménez, A., Fernández-Río J., & Méndez-Alonso. D. (2015). Sport Education model versus traditional
model: Effects on motivation and sportsmanship. International journal of medicine and science of
physical activity and sport, 15(59), 449–466. https://doi.org/10.15366/rimcafd2015.59.004
Menéndez Santurio, J. I., & Fernández-Rio, J. (2018). Spanish version of the basic psychological needs in
physical education scale. International journal of medicine and science of physical activity and sport,
18(69), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.15366/rimcafd2018.69.008
Meroño, L., Calderón, A., & Hastie, P. A. (2016). Effect of Sport Education on the technical learning and
motivational climate of junior high performance swimmers. RICYDE. International journal of sport
science, 12(44), 182–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.5232/ricyde2016.04407
Metzler, M. W. (2017). Instructional models for physical education. 3rd ed. AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Moller, A. C., & Elliot, A. J. (2006). The 2 X 2 achievement goal framework: An overview of empirical
research. In A. Mittel (Ed.), Focus on educational psychology (pp. 307–326). Nova Science Publishers,
Inc.
Parker, M. B., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2012). Sport education: A panacea for hegemonic masculinity in
physical education or more of the same? Sport, education and society, 17(4), 479-496.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2011.608945
Parri, M., & Ceciliani, A. (2019). Best Practice in P.E. for gender equity-A review. Journal of Physical
Education and Sport, 19(5), 1943-1952. https:// doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2019.s5289
Pereira, J., Hastie, P. A., Araújo, R., Farias, C., Rolim, R., & Mesquita, I. (2015). A comparative study of
students' track and field technical performance in sport education and in a direct instruction approach.
Journal of sports science and medicine, 14(1), 118–127.
Perlman, D. J. (2010). Change in affect and needs satisfaction for amotivated students within the sport education
model. Journal of teaching in physical education, 29(4), 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.29.4.433
VÍCTOR MANSO-LORENZO, CARLOS EVANGELIO, GERMÁN RUIZ-TENDERO, SIXTO GONZÁLEZ-
VÍLLORA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
3221
Perlman, D. J. (2011). Examination of self-determination within the Sport Education Model. Asia-pacific journal
of health, sport and physical education, 2(1), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2011.9730345
Perlman, D., & Goc Karp, G. (2010). A self-determined perspective of the Sport Education Model. Physical
education & sport pedagogy, 15(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980903535800
Petracovschi, S., Voicu, S., Faur, M., & Sinitean-Singer, F. (2011). Promote the equality and fairness for
everyone in physical education activity-the case of mixed group. Journal of Physical Education and
Sport, 11(1), 81-86.
Quay, J., Kokkonen, J., & Kokkonen, M. (2016). Finnish interpretations of creative physical education. Asia-
pacific journal of health, sport and physical education, 7(2), 173–190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2016.1196115
Rocamora, I., González-Víllora, S., Fernández-Río, J., & Arias-Palencia, NM. (2019). Physical activity levels,
game performance and friendship goals using two different pedagogical models: Sport Education and
Direct Instruction. Physical education and sport pedagogy, 24(1), 87–102.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1561839
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation,
development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.
Siedentop, D. L., Hastie, P., & van der Mars, H. (2020). Complete guide to sport education. Champaign, II:
Human Kinetics.
Sinelnikov, O. A. (2009). Sport education for teachers: Professional development when introducing a novel
curriculum model. European physical education review, 15, 91–114.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X09105213
Smither, K., & Zhu, X. (2011). High school students’ experiences in a Sport Education unit: The importance of
team autonomy and problem-solving opportunities. European physical education review, 17(2), 203–
217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X11413185
Spittle, M., & Byrne, K. (2009). The influence of Sport Education on student motivation in physical education.
Physical education & sport pedagogy 14(3), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980801995239
Wallhead, T. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Effects of a sport education intervention on students’ motivational
responses in physical education. Journal of teaching of physical education, 23, 4–18.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.23.1.4
Wallhead, T. L., Hagger, M., & Smith, D. T. (2010). Sport education and extra-curricular sport participation: An
examination using the trans-contextual model of motivation. Research quarterly in exercise and sport,
81, 442– 455. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2010.10599705
Wallhead, T., & O'sullivan, M. (2005). Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical
education and sport pedagogy, 10(2), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980500105098
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw
Hill.
... Conversely, when there are opportunities for implicit/studentcentered approaches, students have more opportunities to be involved in the decisionmaking process; this can be seen in Teaching Games for Understanding approaches, where skills are reduced or substituted, and modified games introduce students to the game principles [12]. Manso-Lorenzo et al. [53] found that explicit and implicit teaching strategies are not sufficient when used independently. Participants similarly outlined that a polarized approach to teaching PE would not be effective, and that a combination of both teacherand student-centered approaches would be the most beneficial. ...
Article
Full-text available
Fundamental motor/movement skills (FMS) describe the basic skills necessary to complete physical tasks, and are a key aspect of primary school physical education (PE) programs. Yet, specific teaching styles for FMS development have been relatively unexplored. Through a mixed-methods design, experiences and perceptions of different PE teachers (preservice, specialist, and generalist) were explored. The Spectrum of Teaching Styles (STS) survey was used to quantify self-reported use of teaching styles that may be used by PE teachers (N = 102). Semi-structured, qualitative interviews with a subset of participants (N = 11) were employed to explore how PE teachers perceive FMS development in PE classes. Combined, the findings highlight a preference for collaborative approaches to teaching and learning in PE, with a specific preference for explicit teaching strategies. Survey results demonstrated a preference for Style B (the practice style), which promotes teacher facilitation of activities and constructive feedback, with opportunities for students to practice skills and receive feedback. Teachers described how confidence with PE content influences the ability to provide lessons that target FMS development; this was reinforced by desires for additional professional development and training. Together, the findings provide a holistic view of teaching styles used in PE for FMS development, and outline a need to explore teaching approaches used by different PE teachers.
... ;Manso-Lorenzo et al., 2020;Martínez de Ojeda et al., 2021) han mostrado que el desarrollo de intervenciones didácticas con ambos modelos (juntos o por separado) influye positivamente en la percepción de novedad y variedad, aumentando la motivación autónoma de los estudiantes. También podríamos emplear el modelo de Educación Física relacionada con la salud para trabajar contenidos de condición física y salud, el modelo de educación aventura para actividades en el medio natural, o modelos más transversales como el de autoconstrucción de materiales, el modelo de res-ponsabilidad personal y social o el modelo de aprendizaje cooperativo. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
En este capítulo abordaremos se aborda qué climas motivacionales se pueden desarrollar durante las clases de Educación Física desde la teoría de las metas de logro (Ames, 1992; Nicholls, 1989) para obtener consecuencias positivas de índole afectivo, cognitivo y comportamental. Asimismo, se detallan propuestas y ejemplos que ayuden a los docentes a generar un clima tarea y reducir el clima ego en las clases de Educación Física. Para ello, Ames (1992) inicialmente enumeró seis ámbitos o elementos donde intervenir denominados áreas TARGET, que son las siglas en inglés de tarea (Task), autoridad (Authority), reconocimiento (Recognition), agrupación (Grouping), evaluación (Evaluation) y tiempo (Timing). Manipulando estos elementos conseguiremos promover un clima tarea en las clases de Educación Física.
... ;Manso-Lorenzo et al., 2020;Martínez de Ojeda et al., 2021) han mostrado que el desarrollo de intervenciones didácticas con ambos modelos (juntos o por separado) influye positivamente en la percepción de novedad y variedad, aumentando la motivación autónoma de los estudiantes. También podríamos emplear el modelo de Educación Física relacionada con la salud para trabajar contenidos de condición física y salud, el modelo de educación aventura para actividades en el medio natural, o modelos más transversales como el de autoconstrucción de materiales, el modelo de res-ponsabilidad personal y social o el modelo de aprendizaje cooperativo. ...
Chapter
Puede descargar gratuitamente el capítulo, así como el libro completo en el siguiente enlace: https://doi.org/10.26754/uz.978-84-18321-22-1 You can download the chapter for free, as well as the complete book (in Spanish) at the following link: https://doi.org/10.26754/uz.978-84-18321-22-1
... Investigaciones recientes muestran el potencial del MED para lograr los cuatro resultados de aprendizaje de la EF, aprendizaje físico, cognitivo, social y afectivo (Farias, Wallhead & Mesquita, 2020;Guijarro, Rocamora, Evangelio & Víllora, 2020). Comparado con el modelo de instrucción directa, el MED parece promover niveles significativamente más altos de: actividad física ligera y moderada, y desempeño en el juego (Rocamora, Gonzalez-Villora, Fernández-Río & Arias-Palencia, 2019); adquisición de hábitos deportivos, intención de ser físicamente activo, clima de aula positivo y deportividad (Viciana, Casado-Robles, Pérez-Macías & Mayorga-Vega, 2020); autonomía (Manso-Lorenzo, Evangelio, Ruiz-Tendero, & González-Víllora, 2020;Viciana, Casado-Robles, Pérez-Macías & Mayorga-Vega, 2020); habilidades personales e interpersonales (relaciones de amistad y cooperación entre los alumnos) (Rocamora, Gonzalez-Villora, Fernández-Río & Arias-Palencia, 2019;Viciana, Casado-Robles, Pérez-Macías & Mayorga-Vega, 2020). En general, una intervención basada en el MED en EF permite que los alumnos mejoren sus competencias de ciudadanía (Viciana, Casado-Robles, Pérez-Macías & Mayorga-Vega, 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Los modelos de enseñanza centrados en el alumno han sido recientemente objeto de atención, considerándose eficaces para potenciar el aprendizaje del alumno y contribuyendo a formar alumnos creativos, autónomos, capaces de resolver problemas y tomar decisiones. El presente ensayo se centra en dos modelos de enseñanza empleados en Educación Física: el Modelo de Aprendizaje Cooperativo y el Modelo de Educación Deportiva. Primero se describen las características básicas de ambos modelos. Seguidamente, se indican las características y lagunas de investigación, basadas en los resultados de investigaciones previas, y se proponen orientaciones prácticas para profesores de Educación Física y otros profesionales de la Educación. Los resultados muestran que: profesores y alumnos dan valor a estos modelos; los profesores indican diferentes dificultades en su implementación, principalmente aquellos que se encuentran en fase inicial de su carrera profesional; los alumnos consideran necesario más tiempo dedicado a la Educación Física. Los programas de Formación de Profesores deberían facilitar a los futuros docentes múltiples experiencias de práctica pedagógica y dotarlos de competencias de gestión del aula. A nivel metodológico, se sugiere emplear unidades de instrucción de larga duración y diseños de investigación cualitativos que analicen en profundidad la complejidad del proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje centrado en el alumno.
Article
Full-text available
La Educación Física se encuentra en una posición privilegiada para generar hábitos de actividad física saludables y perdurables en jóvenes. En este contexto, la satisfacción de las variables psicológicas de competencia, autonomía, relación y novedad puede ser clave para que los estudiantes tengan experiencias positivas que desencadenen en un alto nivel de compromiso hacia la actividad física. El objetivo de esta investigación fue analizar el efecto de un programa de concienciación hacia la discapacidad en educación física sobre las variables psicológicas en los participantes. El estudio adoptó un diseño cuasi- experimental, sin grupo control y con medidas pre- y post-test. Un total de 312 estudiantes entre 11 y 18 años participaron en la investigación (174 varones y 138 mujeres). Los resultados mostraron un aumento en los valores de las variables autonomía y novedad tras la aplicación del programa. Por el contrario, la relación disminuyó significativamente. No se encontraron diferencias en las variables competencia y compromiso. En conclusión, se deberían seguir mejorando y aplicando programas que fomenten la educación física inclusiva con la finalidad de mejorar la motivación de los estudiantes y, por ende, su adherencia a la actividad física.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this research was to test novelty as a candidate basic psychological need according to the inclusion criteria established within basic psychological needs theory (BPNT). Two cross-sectional studies with 303 (Mage = 33.50, SD = 12.95; 58.41% female) and 598 (Mage = 35.47, SD = 11.89; 54.18% female) Spanish adults were conducted in physical exercise and general life contexts with the following aims: (1) to analyze relations between novelty satisfaction/frustration and well-being outcomes; (2) to examine the mediating role of motivation (autonomous, controlled, and amotivation) in these relations; and (3) to study whether these associations held regardless of the importance participants attached to the need for novelty, and their level of openness to new experiences. In Study 1, satisfaction of the need for novelty positively and directly predicted autonomous motivation and vitality in physical exercise, beyond the three existing basic needs. It also indirectly predicted enjoyment and vitality through autonomous motivation. There was little evidence that importance ratings for need for novelty moderated these relations. In Study 2, novelty satisfaction positively predicted, and novelty frustration negatively predicted, vitality, life satisfaction, and meaning in life. Openness to experience strengthened the relations between novelty satisfaction/frustration and outcomes. A similar pattern of effects was found for the three basic psychological needs. Results provide preliminary support of novelty as an additional candidate need in BPNT.
Article
Full-text available
This study is an updated review of the most recent implementations of the Sport Education Model (SEM) from 1st to 12th grades (ages 6-18), including the newest research trends for future studies. A systematic review conducted from 2013 to 2017 used the main reference databases and original articles including information about instances of SEM implementation in any school grade. Results showed that SEM implementation has expanded enormously over the last five years to include all learning domains: physical, social, cognitive, and affective. However, such implementation is not easy and it demands specific teacher training. SEM seems to be a proper pedagogical approach for sports practice while developing motor skills, tactical-technical knowledge, and values. Resumo: Este estudo consistiu em oferecer uma revisão atualizada das implementações mais recentes do Modelo de Sport Education (SEM) do primeiro ao 12º ano (6-18 anos), incluindo as mais novas tendências de pesquisa para estudos futuros. Uma revisão sistemática de 2013 a 2017 foi realizada utilizando os bancos de dados de maior referência e os artigos originais que incluíam informações sobre as implementações do SEM em qualquer grau escolar. A implementação do SEM expandiu-se enormemente nos últimos cinco anos para incluir todos os diferentes domínios de aprendizagem: físico, social, cognitivo e afetivo. Entretanto, a implementação do SEM não é fácil e precisa de formação específica de professores. O SEM parece ser uma abordagem pedagógica adequada para praticar esporte, ao mesmo tempo em que desenvolve habilidades motoras, conhecimento técnico-tático e valores. Resumen: El objetivo del estudio fue ofrecer una revisión de las implementaciones más recientes del Modelo Sport Education (SEM), desde primero de Educación Primaria hasta segundo de Bachillerato (6-18 años), incluyendo las más nuevas tendencias de investigación para estudios futuros. Se realizó una revisión sistemática desde 2013 hasta 2017, usando las principales bases de datos y los artículos originales que incluían informaciones sobre las implementaciones del SEM en cualquier grado escolar. La implementación del SEM se ha expandido enormemente en los últimos cinco años para incluir a todos los dominios del aprendizaje: físico, social, cognitivo y afectivo. Sin embargo, dicha implementación no es fácil y requiere formación específica del profesorado. El SEM parece un abordaje pedagógico adecuado para practicar deporte, al mismo tiempo que desarrolla habilidades motoras, conocimiento técnico-táctico y valores.
Article
Full-text available
Based on Self-Determination Theory, this research aimed to examine la influence of Sport Education on basic psychological need satisfaction in the sport teaching-learning process that takes place in Physical Education. The participants were 44 high school students (22 men and 22 women; Mage = 16.32, SDage = 0.57) and 2 Physical Education pre-service teachers. The design was a quasi-experimental study with, a priori, non-equivalent control group using pre-and post-intervention measures and intra-and inter-analyses. The intervention consisted of 12 basketball sessions both for the experimental group (n = 22), which developed Sport Education, and for the control group (n = 22), which developed the traditional teaching. The results showed that Sport Education significantly improved the levels of autonomy, competence and relatedness need satisfaction in the inter-group analysis and in the intra-group analysis. In its conclusion, the suitability of Sport Education to contribute developing students' basic psychological need satisfaction in the sport teaching-learning process in Physical Education was indicated.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of physical education and sports in promoting social values among youth. Physical education and sports plays a vital role in educating the youth regarding the importance of social values in their life. Reviewed literature investigated that the importance of association in educating both minds and body. Further, it also encourages the social values among youth that allow them to develop the social relations with their community. Moreover, the benefits of physical education and sports can influence both academic learning and physical activity of the youth.
Article
Full-text available
Background: The popularised notion of models-based practice (MBP) is one that focuses on the delivery of a model, e.g. Cooperative Learning, Sport Education, Teaching Personal and Social Responsibility, Teaching Games for Understanding. Indeed, while an abundance of research studies have examined the delivery of a single model and some have explored hybrid models, few have sought to meaningfully and purposefully connect different models in a school's curriculum (see Kirk, D. 2013. ‘Educational Value and Models-based Practice in Physical Education.’ Educational Philosophy and Theory 45 (9): 973–986.; Lund, J., and D. Tannehill. 2015. Standards-based Physical Education Curriculum Development. 3rd ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.; Quay, J., and J. Peters. 2008. ‘Skills, Strategies, Sport, and Social Responsibility: Reconnecting Physical Education.’ Journal of Curriculum Studies 40 (5): 601–626.). Significantly none, to date, have empirically investigated broader notions of MBP that make use of a range of different pedagogical models in/through the PE curriculum (Kirk, D. 2013. ‘Educational Value and Models-based Practice in Physical Education.’ Educational Philosophy and Theory 45 (9): 973–986.). Aim: To provide a first empirical insight into using a MBP approach involving several models to teach physical education. At its heart, this paper presents the reader with the realistic and nuanced challenges that arise in striving towards, engaging with, planning for, and enacting a broader, multimodel notion of MBP. Method: While the study itself was broader, we focus primarily on three units (one using Cooperative Learning, one using a Tactical Games/Cooperative Learning hybrid and a third using Sport Education) taught to boys in two different age groups (i.e. 11–12 and 14–15). Two analytical questions inform and guide our enquiry: (1) What do we learn about MBP implementation through this project that would help other physical education practitioners implement a multimodel MBP approach? and (2) What are the key enablers and constraints of early MBP implementation? Data sources included (a) 21 semi-structured interviews with student groups, (b) teacher post-lesson and post-unit reflective analyses, (c) daily teacher reflective diaries, and (d) teacher unit diaries. Data were analysed comparatively considering the two analytical questions. Results: The data analysis conveys strong themes around the areas of teacher and student prior learning, working toward facilitating a change in practice, sufficient time to consider changes in practice, and changing philosophies and practices. The results suggest that the consistent challenge that arose for the teacher towards the goal of adopting a MBP approach was the reduction of his overt involvement as a teacher. While the teacher bought into the philosophy of multimodel MBP he was continually frustrated at not progressing as quickly as he would like in changing his practice to match his philosophy. Conclusions: Despite his best intentions, early attempts to use a multimodel MBP approach were limited by the teacher’s ability to re-conceptualise teaching. The teacher made ‘rookie mistakes’ and tried to transfer his normal classroom practice onto paper handouts while simultaneously inviting students to play a more central role in the classroom. In considering this journey, we can see an indication of the investment needed to implement a MBP approach. Pedagogical change in the form of MBP is a process that needs to be supported by a community of practice intent on improving learning across multiple domains in physical education.
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study was to conduct a literature review on the motivational processes in a Sport Education curriculum model among high school-aged students using self-determination theory and achievement goal theory as theoretical frameworks. Literature for analysis was searched through electronic databases including Academic Research Complete, ERIC, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science by entering ‘Sport Education’, ‘physical education’, and ‘high school’ or ‘secondary school’ as keywords. Articles for review were then selected using the following criteria: (a) written in English; (b) published in a peer-reviewed journal; (c) a Sport Education curriculum model implemented in high school settings with three season phases; (d) providing empirical findings; and (e) investigating motivational variables as main outcomes. A total of 18 articles were identified of moderate and high quality based on a quality assessment. A systematic review of the articles resulted in three main findings: (a) self-determination theory and achievement goal theory strongly support the positive motivational influence of Sport Education; (b) Sport Education is relatively consistent in promoting motivational outcomes across genders, grade levels, sports, and motivational profiles; and (c) more research with long-term follow-up data and teacher participants in diverse school settings is needed to examine potential differences in the motivational impact of Sport Education programs.
Article
Background Advances in technology have changed children’s lifestyle so much that the majority of them do not meet the recommended 60 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity every day. Compulsory Physical Education has been highlighted as an ideal context to achieve the suggested physical activity (PA) goals, since it could be the only place where some students become truly physically active. In those classes, the teacher selects a pedagogical approach and this selection could be vital to meet the advised PA levels. Purpose The goal was to assess the effects of two instructional approaches, Sport Education Model (SEM) and Direct Instruction (DI) in Primary Education students’ physical activity intensity levels, game performance, and friendship goals. Method A total of 88 students with an average age of 11.16 ± 0.63 years, enrolled in two year-5 (from 10 to11 years) and two year-6 (from 11 to 12 years) Physical Education classes of the same school agreed to participate. The number of participants in the SEM was 47 and in DI was 41. The schools’ administration distributed one class of each grade to the experimental group, which experienced SEM, and to the non-equivalent group, which experienced DI. The content selected for both study groups was the same: Handball. Both study groups experienced a 15-session learning unit (45 min per class, three sessions per week). The goal was to conduct the experiment in a non-manipulated (intact) educational context. It followed a pre-test, post-test, experimental, non-equivalent group design. Participants wore Actigraph GT3X accelerometers in order to monitor physical activity levels, answered questionnaires to assess friendship goals, and their game performance was assessed using the Game Performance Assessment instrument (GPAI). Results Results showed that students who experienced the SEM had significantly higher light and moderate physical activity levels, friendship-approach and friendship-avoidance goals, while the ones who experienced DI had significantly higher sedentary physical activity levels. The GPAI scores showed significant gains in students’ game performance in both study groups, but these were larger in the SEM one. Conclusions The SEM could be considered more effective than DI to improve Primary Education students’ PA levels, game performance and friendship goals.
Article
Novelty has recently been suggested as a potential basic psychological need within self-determination theory. Taking into account the lack of research on this new construct, the purpose of this study was to show the role of novelty satisfaction in physical education, analyzing its relations with some outcomes that are relevant for academic achievement. Secondary school students completed measures of basic psychological need satisfaction (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), novelty satisfaction, the three types of intrinsic motivation (to know, to accomplish, and to experience stimulation), and different outcomes (vitality, dispositional flow, and satisfaction) for physical education. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a high correlation between autonomy and novelty satisfaction. The problem of discriminant validity was solved by removing an item from the original version of the Novelty Need Satisfaction Scale due to its overlap with the autonomy construct. This modification contributed to improving the psychometric properties of this scale. Structural equation modeling showed that satisfaction of the need for competence was the strongest predictor of intrinsic motivation to accomplish and to experience stimulation, whereas novelty satisfaction was the strongest predictor of intrinsic motivation to know. Positive direct and indirect effects from novelty satisfaction were found on vitality, dispositional flow, and satisfaction with physical education classes. These results suggest the importance of teachers developing strategies to provide novelty support, with the aim of achieving multiple positive outcomes in physical education.