مهران منش, مهراب, واعظ موسوی, سیّد محمّد کاظم, اصلانخانی, محمد علی. (1404). پیامدهای یادگیری روش­های آموزش هیبرید در بافت تربیت‌بدنی: یک مرور نظام ­مند. , 17(59), 37-82. doi: 10.22089/mbj.2023.14275.2077
مهراب مهران منش; سیّد محمّد کاظم واعظ موسوی; محمد علی اصلانخانی. "پیامدهای یادگیری روش­های آموزش هیبرید در بافت تربیت‌بدنی: یک مرور نظام ­مند". , 17, 59, 1404, 37-82. doi: 10.22089/mbj.2023.14275.2077
مهران منش, مهراب, واعظ موسوی, سیّد محمّد کاظم, اصلانخانی, محمد علی. (1404). 'پیامدهای یادگیری روش­های آموزش هیبرید در بافت تربیت‌بدنی: یک مرور نظام ­مند', , 17(59), pp. 37-82. doi: 10.22089/mbj.2023.14275.2077
مهران منش, مهراب, واعظ موسوی, سیّد محمّد کاظم, اصلانخانی, محمد علی. پیامدهای یادگیری روش­های آموزش هیبرید در بافت تربیت‌بدنی: یک مرور نظام ­مند. , 1404; 17(59): 37-82. doi: 10.22089/mbj.2023.14275.2077

پیامدهای یادگیری روش­های آموزش هیبرید در بافت تربیت‌بدنی: یک مرور نظام ­مند

رفتار حرکتی
مقاله 18، دوره 17، شماره 59، اردیبهشت 1404، صفحه 37-82    اصل مقاله (946.39 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22089/mbj.2023.14275.2077
نویسندگان
مهراب مهران منش1؛ سیّد محمّد کاظم واعظ موسوی* 2؛ محمد علی اصلانخانی3
1گروه رفتار حرکتی، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران.
2استاد گروه تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه جامع امام حسین (ع)، تهران، ایران
3استاد گروه رفتار حرکتی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
هدف اصلی مرور نظام­مند حاضر، ترکیب کیفی یافته­های مطالعاتی درخصوص تأثیر روش­های آموزش هیبرید بر پیامدهای جسمی-حرکتی، عاطفی، شناختی و اجتماعی یادگیری در بافت تربیت‌بدنی آموزشگاهی بود. مطالعه حاضر براساس خط‌مشی‌های نسخه 2020 بیانیه پریزما طراحی شد. جستجو با استفاده از 26 عبارت از پایگاه­های اطلاعات علمی فارسی (سه مورد) و انگلیسی (10 مورد) بین سال­های 2000 تا 2022 میلادی انجام شد. پس از بررسی عناوین، چکیده­ها، رکوردهای تکراری، متن­کامل مقالات و معیارهای ورود و خروج، 35 مطالعه واجد شرایط انتخاب شد. درمجموع، 4/71 درصد مطالعات مربوط به هفت سال اخیر بودند و 2600 نفر در آن‌ها شرکت داشتند (48 درصد پسر). بیشتر مطالعات در اسپانیا (7/45 درصد) و پرتغال (9/22 درصد) اجرا شد و تنها سه مطالعه (6/8 درصد) مربوط به ایران بود. اکثر مطالعات روی آموزش 17 محتوای آموزشی ورزشی در زمینه تربیت‌بدنی مقطع متوسطه متمرکز بودند (3/74 درصد). درمجموع، 14 روش آموزش هیبرید شناسایی شد که در آن‌ها مدل­های آموزش ورزش (8/85 درصد)، آموزش بازی برای فهمیدن (20 درصد)، آموزش مسئولیت­پذیری فردی و اجتماعی (9/2 درصد) و تربیت‌بدنی رسمی (9/2 درصد) به عنوان مدل پایه بودند. پیامدهای عاطفی (3/54 درصد)، اجتماعی (9/42 درصد)، جسمی-حرکتی (40 درصد) و شناختی (7/25 درصد)، به‌ترتیب بیشترین حیطه­های بررسی‌شده بودند. به‌جز تعداد اندکی شواهد ناهمخوان، روش­های آموزش هیبرید در ایجاد پیامدهای مثبت یادگیری بر روش­­های غیرهیبرید برتری داشتند. در انتها، درباره ملاحظات روش­شناسی و مسیرهای مطالعاتی آتی درخصوص روش­های آموزش تربیت‌بدنی در مدارس بحث شد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
تربیت بدنی؛ روش آموزش؛ روش آموزش غیرخطی؛ روش آموزش هیبرید؛ آموزشی مبتنی بر مدل
مراجع
  1. Jewett AE, Bain LL. The curriculum process in physical education. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark; 1985.
  2. Metzler M. Instructional models for physical education 3rd New York, NY: Routledge; 2017. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315213521
  3. Haerens L, Kirk D, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Toward the development of a pedagogical model for health-based physical education. Quest. 2011;63(3):321-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2011.10483684
  4. Hastie PA, Casey A. Fidelity in models-based practice research in sport pedagogy: a guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2014;33(3):422-31. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0141
  5. Casey A, Kirk D. Reorganising physical education through pedagogical models: The possibility of MbP. In: Casey A, Kirk D, editors. Models-based practice in physical education. London, UK: Routledge; 2021. pp. 97-110.
  6. Siedentop D. Sport education: quality PE through positive sport experiences. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1994.
  7. Siedentop D, Hastie PA, Mars HVD. Complete guide to sport education. 3rd Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2019.
  8. Davids K, Button C, Bennett S. Dynamics of skill acquisition: a constraints-led approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2008.
  9. Davids K, Chow JY, Shuttleworth R. A constraints-based framework for nonlinear pedagogy in physical education. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand. 2005;38(1):17-29.
  10. Dyson B, Casey A. Cooperative learning in physical education and physical activity: a practical introduction. London: Routledge; 2016. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739496
  11. Hellison D. Teaching personal and social responsibility through physical activity. 3rd Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2011.
  12. Bunker D, Thorpe R. A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education. 1982;18(1):5-8.
  13. Mitchell SA, Oslin JL, Griffin LL. Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games approach. 3rd Champaign: Human Kinetics; 2013.
  14. den Duyn N. Game sense: Developing thinking players’ workbook. Canberra: Australian Sports Commission; 1997.
  15. Launder AG. Play practice: The games approach to teaching and coaching sport. 2nd Adelaide: Human Kinetics; 2001.
  16. Tan SKS, Wright SC, McNeill MC, Fry JM, Tan CWK. Implementating the games concept approach in Singapore schools: a preliminary report. REACT. 2002;21(1):77-84.
  17. Li W, Xie X, Li H. Situated game teaching through set plays: a curricular model to teaching sports in physical education. . Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2018;37(4):352-62. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0001
  18. Musch E, Mertens B, Timmers E, Graça A, Meertens T, Taborsky F, et al. An innovative didactical invasion games model to teach basketball and handball. The 7th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science; Athens, Greece; 2002.
  19. Mesquita I, Graça A, Gomes AR, Cruz C. Examining the impact of a step game approach to teaching volleyball on student tactical decision making and skill execution during game play. Journal of Human Movement Studies. 2005;48(6):469-92.
  20. Harvey S, Jarrett K. A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2014;19(3):278-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.754005
  21. Hastie PA, Mesquita I. Sport-based Physical Education. In: Ennis C, editor. Routledge handbook of physical education pedagogies. London: Routledge; 2016. pp. 367-79.
  22. Nathan S. Style E tactical pedagogical model. In: Llevot-Calvet N, Bernad-Cavero O, editors. Advanced learning and teaching environments: Innovation, contents and methods. London: IntechOpen; 2018. pp. 223-42. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.68354
  23. Nathan S, Haynes J. A move to an innovative games teaching model: Style E Tactical (SET). Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education. 2013;4(3):287–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2013.836769
  24. Dyson B, Grineski S. Using cooperative learning structures in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance. 2001;72(2):28-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2001.10605831
  25. Pozo P, Grao-Cruces A, Pérez-Ordás R. Teaching personal and social responsibility model-based programmes in physical education: a systematic review. European Physical Education Review. 2018;24(1):56-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x16664749
  26. Silva R, Farias C, Ramos A, Mesquita I. Implementation of game-centered approaches in physical education: a systematic review. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2021;21:3246-59. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2021.s6443
  27. Rivera-Pérez S, Fernandez-Rio J, Iglesias Gallego D. Effects of an 8-week cooperative learning intervention on physical education students’ task and self-approach goals, and emotional intelligence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(1):e61. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010061
  28. Landi D, Fitzpatrick K, McGlashan H. Models based practices in physical education: a sociocritical reflection. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2016;35(4):400-11. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0117
  29. Ang SC, Penney D. Promoting social and emotional learning outcomes in physical education: insights from a school-based research project in Singapore. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education. 2013;4(3):267-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/18377122.2013.836768
  30. Casey A, MacPhail A, Larsson H, Quennerstedt M. Between hope and happening: problematizing the M and the P in models-based practice. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2021;26(2):111-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2020.1789576
  31. Shen Y, Shao Influence of hybrid pedagogical models on learning outcomes in physical education: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(15):e9673. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159673
  32. González-Víllora S, Evangelio C, Sierra-Díaz J, Fernández-Río J. Hybridizing pedagogical models: a systematic review. European Physical Education Review. 2019;25(4):1056-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x18797363
  33. Hastie PA, Curtner-Smith MD. Influence of a hybrid sport education - teaching games for understanding unit on one teacher and his students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2006;11(1):1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408980500466813
  34. Fernandez-Rio J. Another step in models-based practice: hybridizing cooperative learning and teaching for personal and social responsibility. Taylor & Francis; 2014. p. 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2014.937158
  35. Dyson B, Griffin LL, Hastie PA. Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest. 2004;56(2):226-40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2004.10491823
  36. Gordon B. Merging teaching personal and social responsibility with sport education: a marriage made in heaven or hell? ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal. 2009;53(3/4):13-6. https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.12830720.v1
  37. Menéndez-Santurio JI, Fernandez-Rio J. Hybridising sport education and teaching for personal and social responsibility to include students with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 2017;32(4):508-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1267943
  38. Muñoz-Llerena A, Hernández-Hernández E, García-de-Alcaraz A, Caballero-Blanco P. Personal and social responsibility development in a volleyball hybrid positive youth development program: a mixed methods approach. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675532
  39. Bessa C, Hastie PA, Araújo R, Mesquita I. What do we know about the development of personal and social skills within the sport education model: a systematic review. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2019;18(4):812-29.
  40. Bessa C, Hastie PA, Ramos A, Mesquita I. What actually differs between traditional teaching and sport education in students' learning outcomes? A critical systematic review. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 2021;20(1):110-25. https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2021.110
  41. Tendinha R, Alves MD, Freitas T, Appleton G, Gonçalves L, Ihle A, et al. Impact of sports education model in physical education on students’ motivation: a systematic review. Children. 2021;8(7):e588. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8070588
  42. Chu TL, Zhang T. Motivational processes in sport education programs among high school students: a systematic review. European Physical Education Review. 2018;24(3):372-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X17751231
  43. Hastie PA, de Ojeda DM, Luquin AC. A review of research on sport education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2011;16(2):103-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2010.535202
  44. Morales-Belando MT, Kirk D, Arias-Estero JL. A systematic review of teaching games for understanding intervention studies from a practice-referenced perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2021:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2021.1897066
  45. Abad Robles MT, Collado-Mateo D, Fernández-Espínola C, Castillo Viera E, Giménez Fuentes-Guerra FJ. Effects of teaching games on decision making and skill execution: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(2):e505. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020505
  46. Barba-Martín RA, Bores-García D, Hortigüela-Alcalá D, González-Calvo G. The application of the teaching games for understanding in physical education: systematic review of the last six years. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(9):3330. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17093330
  47. Miller A. Games centered approaches in teaching children and adolescents: systematic review of associated student outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2015;34(1):36-58. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0155
  48. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  49. Methley AM, Campbell S, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research. 2014;14(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
  50. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd Chichester; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604
  51. Stran M, Sinelnikov O, Woodruff E. Pre-service teachers’ experiences implementing a hybrid curriculum: sport education and teaching games for understanding. European Physical Education Review. 2012;18(3):287-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X12450789
  52. Evangelio C, González-Víllora S, Fernandez-Rio J, Peiró-Velert C. Students’ perceptions on three-way pedagogical models hybridization: contributing to the development of active identities. Sport, Education and Society. 2022;27(6):717-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1907327
  53. Araújo R, Mesquita I, Hastie PA, Farias C, Santos D. Content knowledge of the student-coach in peer teaching tasks in a hybrid SE-SGA volleyball unit. Revista Mineira de Educação Física. 2013;9(1):49-55.
  54. Araujo R, Mesquita I, Hastie PA, Pereira C. Students’ game performance improvements during a hybrid sport education–step-game-approach volleyball unit. European Physical Education Review. 2016;22(2):185-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X15597927
  55. Araújo RMF, Hastie PA, de Assunção Bessa Pereira CH, Mesquita IMR. The evolution of student-coach’s pedagogical content knowledge in a combined use of sport education and the step-game-approach model. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2017;22(5):518-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2017.1294668
  56. Araújo R, Hastie PA, Lohse KR, Bessa C, Mesquita I. The long-term development of volleyball game play performance using Sport Education and the Step-Game-Approach model. European Physical Education Review. 2019;25(2):311-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x17730307
  57. Araújo R, Delgado M, Azevedo E, Mesquita I. Students’ tactical understanding during a hybrid sport education/step-game approach model volleyball teaching unit. Movimento. 2020;26:e26042. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.97764
  58. Antón-Candanedo A, Fernandez-Rio J. Hybridizing pedagogical models to improve students' tactical awareness: a study through the Duni. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte. 2017;19(2/3):257-76.
  59. Pritchard T, McCollum S, Sundal J, Colquit G. Effect of the sport education tactical model on coeducational and single gender game performance. Physical Educator. 2014;71(1):132-54.
  60. Chiva-Bartoll Ó, Salvador-García C, Jesús Ruiz-Montero P. Teaching games for understanding and cooperative learning: can their hybridization increase motivational climate among physical education students? Croatian Journal of Education. 2018;20(2):561-84. https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v20i2.2827
  61. Davoodi M, Yaali R, Ghadiri F, Bahram A. The effect of TGFU, SE, combination (TGFU+SE) and linear training on children's creativity in futsal. Journal of Sports and Motor Development and Learning. 2021;13(3):293-311. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22059/jmlm.2021.327830.1598
  62. Alizadeh L, Mohammad Zadeh H. The role of task constraints manipulation on learning of skills and strategies of basketball by nonlinear pedagogy (TGFU). Motor Behavior. 2020;11(38):115-28. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2018.4684.1547
  63. Farias CF, Mesquita IR, Hastie PA. Game performance and understanding within a hybrid sport education season. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2015;34(3):363-83. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0149
  64. Farias C, Mesquita I, Hastie PA. Student game-play performance in invasion games following three consecutive hybrid sport education seasons. European Physical Education Review. 2019;25(3):691-712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x18769220
  65. Fernandez-Rio J, Menendez-Santurio JI. Teachers and students' perceptions of a hybrid sport education and teaching for personal and social responsibility learning unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2017;36(2):185-96. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-0077
  66. Ghari B, Mohammad Zadeh H, Ahmadi M. The effects of three instructional approaches on basketball game performance in university students. Motor Behavior. 2019;11(35):63-84. https://doi.org/10.22089/mbj.2017.3672.1444
  67. Casey A, Dyson B. The implementation of models-based practice in physical education through action research. European Physical Education Review. 2009;15(2):175-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x09345222
  68. Casey A, MacPhail A. Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2018;23(3):294-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2018.1429588
  69. García-Castejón G, Camerino O, Castañer M, Manzano-Sánchez D, Jiménez-Parra JF, Valero-Valenzuela A. Implementation of a hybrid educational program between the model of personal and social responsibility (TPSR) and the teaching games for understanding (TGfU) in physical education and its effects on health: an approach based on mixed methods. Children. 2021;8(7):e573. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8070573
  70. García-González L, Abós Á, Diloy-Peña S, Gil-Arias A, Sevil-Serrano J. Can a hybrid sport education/teaching games for understanding volleyball unit be more effective in less motivated students? An examination into a set of motivation-related variables. Sustainability. 2020;12(15):6170. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156170
  71. Gubacs-Collins K, Olsen EB. Implementing a tactical games approach with sport education: a chronicle. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. 2010;81(3):36-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2010.10598447
  72. Gutiérrez D, García-López LM, Chaparro-Jilete R, Fernández-Sánchez AJ. Sport education model in second grade: teachers and students' perceptions. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte. 2014;14(2):131-43.
  73. Gil-Arias A, Harvey S, Cárceles A, Práxedes A, Del Villar F. Impact of a hybrid TGfU-sport education unit on student motivation in physical education. PloS One. 2017;12(6):e0179876. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179876
  74. Gil-Arias A, Claver F, Práxedes A, Villar FD, Harvey S. Autonomy support, motivational climate, enjoyment and perceived competence in physical education: impact of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport education unit. European Physical Education Review. 2020;26(1):36-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X18816997
  75. Gil-Arias A, Diloy-Peña S, Sevil-Serrano J, García-González L, Abós Á. A hybrid TGfU/SE volleyball teaching unit for enhancing motivation in physical education: a mixed-method approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021a;18(1):e110. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010110
  76. Gil-Arias A, Harvey S, García-Herreros F, González-Víllora S, Práxedes A, Moreno A. Effect of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport education unit on elementary students’ self-determined motivation in physical education. European Physical Education Review. 2021b;27(2):366-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336x20950174
  77. Mesquita I, Farias C, Hastie PA. The impact of a hybrid sport education–invasion games competence model soccer unit on students’ decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. European Physical Education Review. 2012;18(2):205-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X12440027
  78. Melero-Canas D, Manzano-Sánchez D, Navarro-Ardoy D, Morales-Baños V, Valero-Valenzuela A. The seneb’s enigma: impact of a hybrid personal and social responsibility and gamification model-based practice on motivation and healthy habits in physical education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021a;18(7):e3476. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073476
  79. Melero-Cañas D, Morales-Baños V, Manzano-Sánchez D, Navarro-Ardoy D, Valero-Valenzuela A. Effects of an educational hybrid physical education program on physical fitness, body composition and sedentary and physical activity times in adolescents: the seneb’s enigma. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021b;11:e629335. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.629335
  80. Menéndez-Santurio JI, Fernández-Río J. Violencia, responsabilidad, amistad y necesidades psicológicas básicas: efectos de un programa de educación deportiva y responsabilidad personal y social. Revista de Psicodidáctica. 2016;21(2):245-60. https://doi.org/10.1387/RevPsicodidact.15269
  81. Nathan S. Effect and sustainability of hybrid training styles on speed, accuracy, knowledge acquisition among varying school hockey players. Journal of Sustainable Society. 2013;2(2):49-58. https://doi.org/10.11634/216825851302380
  82. Hastie PA, Buchanan AM. Teaching responsibility through sport education: prospects of a coalition. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2000;71(1):25-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2000.10608877
  83. Evangelio C, Sierra-Díaz J, González-Víllora S, Fernández-Río J. The sport education model in elementary and secondary education: a systematic review. Movimento. 2018;24(3):931-46. https://doi.org/10.22456/1982-8918.81689
  84. Oslin JL, Mitchell SA, Griffin LL. The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI): development and preliminary validation. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 1998;17(2):231-43. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.17.2.231
  85. Ghari B, Mohammadzadeh H, Dehghanizade J. A comparison of game based and traditional instructional approaches: A study of physical activity, self-determined motivation and enjoyment. Journal of Sports and Motor Development and Learning. 2021;13(1):109-27. [In Persian]. https://doi.org/10.22059/jmlm.2021.313683.1546
  86. Harvey S, García-López LM. Objectively measured physical activity of different lesson contexts. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2017;17(2):833-8. https://doi.org.10.7752/jpes.2017.02127
  87. Harvey S, Smith ML, Song Y, Robertson D, Brown R, Smith LR. Gender and school-level differences in students’ moderate and vigorous physical activity levels when taught basketball through the tactical games model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. 2016;35(4):349-57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2016-%200089
  88. Magill RA. Motor learning and control: Concepts and applications. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
  89. Schmidt RA, Lee TD, Winstein C, Wulf G, Zelaznik HN. Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis. 6th Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2018.
  90. Lee TD, Swinnen SP, Serrien DJ. Cognitive effort and motor learning. Quest. 1994;46(3):328-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1994.10484130
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 550
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 77
پژوهشگاه تربیت بدنی و علوم ورزشی
آمار
تعداد نشریات9
تعداد شماره‌ها334
تعداد مقالات4,054
تعداد مشاهده مقاله8,542,921
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله3,066,553