Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Life Skills and Volleyball Teaching: Comparison Between TGfU and the Direct Instruction Model

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

17 January 2025

Posted:

23 January 2025

You are already at the latest version

Abstract

The learning environment created by the physical education teacher, through the teaching model employed, can significantly influence students' engagement during lessons. Therefore, this study aimed to compare tactical-technical learning and students’ self-perceptions of life skills between TGfU and direct instruction. The sample consisted of 67 students, aged between 13 and 15 years, enrolled in the ninth grade of a municipal public school, and the research design involved an in-tervention consisting of 18 sessions, each lasting 60 minutes. The results revealed no significant differences between the teaching models regarding tactical-technical variables (p > 0.05). How-ever, concerning life skills, the TGfU/HVs group demonstrated higher mean teamwork scores than the Traditional group (p = 0.008). On the other hand, the Traditional and control groups achieved higher mean scores for goal-setting skills than the TGfU/HVs group (p = 0.001 for both cases). These findings highlight that the organization of sports practice, despite variations in teaching models, fosters the students’ self-perceptions of life skills, underscoring the necessity of further research to deepen understanding of game-based pedagogies in school physical education. It is also imperative to reflect on implementing additional pedagogical practices in schools that align with institutional objectives and actively promote student learning.

Keywords: 
team sports
;  
performance
;  
constructivism
;  
tactical-technical
;  
learning
Subject: 
Social Sciences  -   Education

1. Introduction

Physical Education teaching in many schools focuses on the teacher, technical skills, and repetitive movement patterns, often failing to foster student motivation, particularly among those uncomfortable with sports (Ferraz et al., 2023; González, 2020). This traditional approach, rooted in direct instruction, places students as mere supporting actors in the teaching and learning process and needs to be rethought considering contemporary theories, especially student-centered ones (Alcalá & Garijo, 2017; Arufe-Giráldez et al., 2023; Pill et al., 2024).
In this context, contemporary methods have been designed to mitigate the negative aspects inherent in traditional approaches, such as the overemphasis on technique, the decontextualized teaching of game ecology, and the lack of student motivation in Physical Education classes (Arufe-Giráldez et al., 2023; González, 2020; Pill et al., 2024). The Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) approach emerged as a response, positioning the student at the center of the learning process and emphasizing cognitive processes such as perception, decision-making, and comprehension (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986). TGfU promotes learning in sports by prioritizing tactical and game understanding over technical skills (Alcalá & Garijo, 2017).
Originally grounded in constructivist principles, TGfU seeks to facilitate active knowledge construction, enabling meaningful learning opportunities and fostering social cooperation (Backes et al., 2023). Within this theoretical framework, knowledge is constructed through negotiation and reinterpretation of the world, allowing students to take responsibility for their meaningful learning by connecting prior knowledge with new insights through cooperative and group activities (Backes et al., 2022, 2023; Beni et al., 2021; Galvão et al., 2022).
Studies on teaching models reveal that both TGfU and Direct Instruction effectively enhance skills in controlled situations (Batez et al., 2021). TGfU, however, enables students to practice adapted versions of sports, promoting simultaneous learning of multiple aspects of a sport (Cocca et al., 2020). Moreover, TGfU positively impacts learning time, increases student engagement, and enhances their participation in the learning process (Indrayogi, 2021; Tangahu, 2019), contributing significantly to motivation and performance (Romadhona et al., 2024).
Despite its benefits, challenges still need to be overcome when adopting TGfU as a regular practice in Physical Education. Theory and research in this field often need to provide explicit or practical solutions for professionals’ day-to-day work (Papagiannopoulos et al., 2023). Morales-Belando et al., 2022 emphasize that the effectiveness of TGfU depends on critical resources, including contextualized lesson planning, a minimum of twelve hours of instruction per unit, adequate teacher training, well-structured modified games (in terms of quantity, difficulty, and timing), and the inclusion of teacher questioning during activities.
Given the challenges of implementing this teaching method, there is a pressing need to integrate significant components from various teaching models, leading to what is known as pedagogical model hybridization (González-Víllora et al., 2019). Hybrid models incorporating TGfU have been shown to make sports teaching more engaging (Batez et al., 2021; García-González et al., 2020), enhancing students’ perceived success in practice (Ortiz et al., 2023). Additionally, hybrid models that utilize TGfU help design more equitable and inclusive learning environments for both genders (Gil-Arias et al., 2021), offering more significant participation opportunities and fostering participants’ physical literacy (Cairney et al., 2019).
In the specific context of volleyball, hybrid approaches improve technical performance in skills such as serving, passing, and setting (Batez et al., 2021), as well as physical performance (Stojanović et al., 2023), engagement, motivation, and enjoyment (Batez et al., 2021; García-González et al., 2020; Gil-Arias et al., 2017). Beyond tactical-technical aspects, school-based approaches should emphasize human development, recognizing students as assets to be nurtured (Bowers et al., 2021; Malete et al., 2022).
The literature shows that TGfU has been hybridized with various teaching models, such as Sports Education (Gil-Arias et al., 2020, 2021; Tendinha et al., 2021), enabling students to learn through and for sports. Additionally, other models articulate with TGfU to foster holistic student development (Shen & Shao, 2022; Stolz & Pill, 2014). This aligns with Brazil’s national curriculum framework (Base Nacional Comum Curricular - BNCC), which emphasizes the importance of experiential learning in schools to foster ethical, conscious, and reflective decision-making in defense of human rights and democratic values (Brasil, 2018).
According to the BNCC, in addition to fostering self-awareness and self-care regarding body and health, socialization and entertainment in the school environment promote interdisciplinary dialogue and broaden students’ understanding of the social dynamics and phenomena associated with physical practices (Brasil, 2018). Consequently, promoting social-emotional competencies, including self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making, is essential for fostering empathetic and cooperative citizens while strengthening students’ mental well-being (Frimaio et al., 2024).
Although distinct approaches, Positive Youth Development (PYD) shares common ground with TGfU by reducing risky behaviors such as delinquency, substance abuse, violence, and school dropout while reinforcing youths’ virtues and strengths (Esperança et al., 2013). Effective PYD requires sustained positive relationships between youth and adults, activities that develop life skills, and opportunities for youth to apply these skills as participants or leaders in community activities (Lerner et al., 2005, 2011).
In this context, transferring life skills learned through sports to everyday life hinges on intentional teaching and deliberate pedagogical strategies to maximize youth development outcomes (Bean et al., 2018; Malete et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2020). Two distinct teaching approaches are evident: an implicit approach, where life skills development occurs without explicit discussion of their transferability (Malete et al., 2022), and an explicit approach, where specific pedagogical strategies are employed to facilitate the transfer of these skills, with open discussion during lessons (Bean et al., 2022; Turnnidge et al., 2014). Simply teaching sports is insufficient to guarantee the transfer of life skills; instead, explicit instruction in life skills transfer is fundamental to the educational process in school sports (Jacobs & Wright, 2018; Zheng et al., 2023).
Although research on TGfU in school settings (Alcalá & Garijo, 2017; Barba-Martín et al., 2020; Ortiz et al., 2023) and life skills through sports education (Coppola et al., 2024; Esperança et al., 2013; Holt et al., 2020) is extensive, little is known about the impact of combining these approaches in Physical Education. This combination is grounded in the need to rethink students’ holistic development, as TGfU leverages constructivist principles (Butler, 2006; Fagundes & Ribas, 2019; Kirk & Macdonald, 1998). At the same time, life skills focus on positive youth development by emphasizing their strengths and virtues (Camiré & Santos, 2019). These complementary approaches align with the BNCC, Brazil’s guiding document for primary education (Brasil, 2018).
Based on the potential of these teaching approaches and the existing knowledge gap regarding their combined use compared to traditional teaching methods, this study aimed to compare tactical-technical learning and students’ self-perceptions of life skills between TGfU and direct instruction models. The following hypotheses were formulated: a) the TGfU group will demonstrate tactical-technical performance comparable to the direct instruction group; b) the TGfU group will score higher in life skills than the direct instruction group.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

The sample consisted of 67 students from a public municipal school in Goiânia, comprising both sexes, aged between 13 and 15 years, all enrolled in the ninth grade of elementary school. To determine the sample size, an a priori power analysis was performed using G*Power software (v. 3.1.9.7). The study by Dalamitros et al. (2023) served as a reference, estimating a sample size sufficient to achieve 95% power to detect a medium effect size (d = 0.30) with a significance criterion of α = 0.05. This calculation indicated a minimum sample size of 27 participants. However, to align the data collection with the school’s pedagogical structure, it was decided to organize each group as a specific class, resulting in one class of 23 students for the TGfU group and two classes of 22 students each for the traditional instruction and control groups.
Inclusion criteria required participants to be enrolled in the school and willing to participate voluntarily. Exclusion criteria included any injury preventing effective participation in classes or tests, absence on scheduled testing days, or missing more than 25% of the lessons. The ethics committee approved the study (approval code: CAAE 65290217.2.0000.5083).

2.2. Experimental Design

Participants were divided into three groups, witch TGfU Group – Volleyball was taught using the TGfU model, incorporating explicit instruction of life skills; Traditional Group – Volleyball was taught using direct instruction, with life skills taught implicitly; Control Group – A different sport was taught, with life skills also taught implicitly.
Pre-tests were conducted over two consecutive days to assess potential differences in technical-tactical learning and life skills acquisition. Following an 18-lesson unit, with each lesson lasting 60 minutes, post-tests were administered similarly.
Each student was analyzed over three sets of 15 points. For consistency, the post-test retained the pre-test team compositions and matchups. The matches were recorded from above the court using two cameras positioned approximately 4 meters behind each end line, elevated 4 meters off the ground. A GoPro Hero 8 Black (GoPro, Inc., Finland) recorded in HD 1080p at 60Hz. To ensure intra- and inter-observer reliability, 20% of the sample was reanalyzed, yielding Kappa values above 0.82, exceeding the recommended threshold.

2.3. Tactical-Technical Performance

Tactical-technical performance was evaluated using the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI), validated by Collet et al. (2011) as the Instrument for Assessing Tactical-Technical Performance in Volleyball (IAD-Vb). The evaluation included two specific indicators: 1 - Specific Performance by Action (SPA), which assessed the serve, reception, set, attack, and defense; 2- Specific Performance by Component (SPC), which evaluated adjustment, efficiency, decision-making, and effectiveness.
Adjustment refers to the preparation phases for executing actions; efficiency assesses technical execution; decision-making evaluates strategic options; and effectiveness measures outcomes of fundamental skills. During the assessment, students were divided into 6-player teams and played 6x6 volleyball matches. Adaptations included two serves per team regardless of scoring, rotation after each team’s serves, and sets capped at 15 points.

2.4. Life Skills

The Life Skills Scale for Sport (P-LSSS) (Nascimento-Junior et al., 2020) assessed students’ perceptions of learning life skills. The scale evaluates eight core life skills associated with sports participation: teamwork, goal setting, social skills, problem-solving and decision-making, emotional skills, leadership, time management, and interpersonal communication skills (Johnston et al., 2013). The P-LSSS showed a high intraclass correlation coefficient for its validation (Nascimento-Junior et al., 2020), making it suitable for this study’s objectives.

2.5. Statistical Procedures

Descriptive data were presented as means and standard deviations. The Friedman test was employed as tactical-technical response data did not meet normality assumptions. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA was used for students’ self-perceptions of life skills and success perception variables, which displayed normal distribution, considering group (intervention types) and time (pre- and post-tests) as factors, with Bonferroni post-hoc adjustments where necessary. Effect sizes were calculated as follows: partial eta squared (η²ₚ) for ANOVA (0.01 = small, 0.06 = medium, 0.14 = large), and Kendall’s W for the Friedman test (0.1–<0.3 = small, 0.3–<0.5 = moderate). All analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 25.0 for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Tactical-Technical Performance

Comparisons of specific performance by action using the Friedman test revealed no significant differences between groups for serve [χ2 (5)=7,434; p=0,190; W=0,078], reception [χ2 (5)=12,725; p=0,26; W=0,196], setting [χ2 (5) = 4,333; p=0,502; W=0,433], attack [χ2 (5)=6,538; p=0,257; W=0,654], and defense [χ2 (5)=5,00; p=0,416; W=0,654] (Table 1).
Specific performance by component analysis using the Friedman test revealed no significant differences between groups in adjustment [χ2 (5)=4.240; p= 0.515; W=0.039], efficiency [χ2 (5)=7.256; p=0.202; W=0.066], and effectiveness [χ2 (5)=7.243; p=0.203; W=0.092]. However, when considering decision-making, the Friedman test indicated significant differences between groups [χ2 (5)=30.717; p=0.001; W=0.279]. Pairwise comparison tests showed that the control group achieved a higher mean score in the pre-test compared to the TGfU/Life Skills group (p=0.038), and the traditional group achieved a higher mean score in the post-test compared to the pre-test (p=0.033) (Table 2).

3.2. Life Skills

The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference in teamwork scores for the group factor [(F (2,34) = 4.862; p= 0.014; η²ₚ= 0.019] but not for the time factor [F (1,21) = 1.583; p= 0.222; η²ₚ=0.070], and the interaction between group and time [(F (2,42) = 0.614; p= 0.546; η²ₚ = 0.28]. The Bonferroni post-hoc analysis showed that the TGfU/Life Skills group had significantly higher scores than the Traditional group (p=0.008). For goal-setting, the repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant difference in the group factor [(F (2,42)=13.170; p=0.001; η²ₚ = 0.385] but no significant differences for the time factor [F(1,21)=1.556; p=0.226; η²ₚ = 0.068], and the interaction between group and time [(F(2,42)=1.838; p=0.172; η²ₚ = 0.080]. Bonferroni post-hoc analysis indicated that the Traditional group scored higher than the TGfU/Life Skills group (p=0.001), and the Control group scored higher than the TGfU/Life Skills group (p=0.001). For other life skills, no significant differences were observed across groups: social skills – group factor [(F(2,42)=0.130; p=0.878; η²ₚ = 0.006], time factor [(F(1,21)=0.349; p=0.561; η²ₚ = 0.016], and interaction between group and time [(F(2,42)=2.192; p=0.124; ηp2=0.095]; problem solving - group factor [(F(2,42)=0.946; p=0.493; η²ₚ =0.043], time factor [(F(1,21)=0.486; p=0.493; η²ₚ = 0.023], and interaction between group and time [(F(2,42)=2.581; p=0.088; η²ₚ = 0.109]; emotional skills - group factor [(F(2,42)=0.164; p=0.850; η²ₚ = 0.008], time factor [(F(1,21)=1.064; p=0.314; η²ₚ = 0.048], and interaction between group and time [(F(2,42)=0.893; p=0.417; η²ₚ = 0.041]; leadership - group factor [(F(2,42)=0.114; p=0.893; ηp2=0.005], time factor [(F(1,21)=0.884; p= 0.358; η²ₚ = 0.040], and interaction between group and time [(F(2,42)=1.919; p=0.159; ηp2=0.084]; time management - group factor [(F(2,42)=0.332; p=0.719; η²ₚ = 0.016], time factor [(F(1,21)=0.159; p=0.694; ηp2=0.008], and interaction between group and time [(F(2,42)=2.135; p=0.131; η²ₚ = 0.092]; communication - group factor [(F(2,42)=0.348; p=0.708; η²ₚ = 0.016], time factor [(F (1,21)=0.002; p=0.964; η²ₚ=0.0001], and interaction between group and time [(F(2,42)=1.418; p=0.254; η²ₚ=0.063] (Table3).

4. Discussion

Contemporary theories, which originated from the TGfU model, shifted the focus of sports education to the students themselves, with technical learning subordinated to tactical learning (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Pereira et al., 2013). Within this new framework, TGfU has proven to be an effective method for both tactical and technical learning, engaging students in a more motivating manner (Alcalá & Garijo, 2017; Barba-Martín et al., 2020; Gil-Arias et al., 2017). At the same time, sports began to be perceived as a tool for social transformation, offering education beyond sport itself and facilitating the acquisition of life skills (Camiré et al., 2023; Nascimento Junior et al., 2022). Therefore, this study aimed to compare tactical-technical learning and students’ self-perceptions of life skills between the TGfU model and the direct instruction model for ninth-grade students at a public school.
Our first hypothesis that the TGfU/Life Skills group would perform similarly in terms of tactical-technical skills compared to the direct instruction group was confirmed. The analysis of technical components such as efficiency and effectiveness showed no significant difference between the TGfU/Life Skills and direct instruction groups. These findings support the study by Batez et al. (2021) revealing similar technical performance between the TGfU/Life Skills and direct instruction groups after a 12-session intervention with 54 students aged 14 to 16. Another study, Pereira et al. (2013) with students aged 11 to 13 years, observed similar improvements in technical skills from pre-test to post-test in both the constructivist model and the direct instruction group after 20 lessons. On the other hand, a study comparing technical learning in hockey over 15 teaching sessions found that the traditional teaching group exhibited greater technical learning than the TGfU group (Turner & Martinek, 1999). Regarding tactical learning, the study conducted with 88 students aged 11 to 12 years showed that after 15 sessions of 45 minutes, students exposed to constructivist interventions demonstrated superior game performance and tactical skills compared to the direct instruction group (Rocamora et al., 2019). Similarly, a study with 40 students aged 11 to 12 found that students exposed to tactical game approaches improved decision-making and technical execution compared to the direct instruction group (González-Espinosa et al., 2021). These findings suggest that tactical-technical learning warrants further research, although TGfU appears to offer more benefits than direct instruction (Aburachid et al., 2019; González-Espinosa et al., 2021; Ortiz et al., 2023). Furthermore, it seems that decision-making and motor skills in more complex environments, such as actual game situations, require additional time to observe differences in learning (Nathan, 2016).
Our second hypothesis, that the TGfU/Life Skills group would score higher in life skills compared to the direct instruction group, was refuted. These results contradict the findings of those Zetou et al. (2022) who examined the effect of a life skills program on 44 children aged 9 to 11 years and found that the program based on explicit life skills teaching was more effective, finding that students understood the concept and function of life skills and intended to use them in other areas. In another study, after an 8-month intervention with 61 young people aged 10 to 15 years, a basketball teaching program focused on the explicit development of life skills contributed to the transfer of life skills as perceived by participants (Ciampolini et al., 2020). This included implicit strategies (creating a mutual trust environment and positive coach behaviors) and explicit strategies (discussing life skills during practice and how to apply them in other contexts). Compared to the literature, the observed differences may be explained by the fact that younger students learn life skills more easily through implicit methods than older students due to cognitive maturity (Bean et al., 2022). Consequently, the implicit development group likely did not differ from the explicit development group, as the students were young and had lower cognitive maturity.
When comparing constructivist and direct instruction models, sports teaching shows similarities in tactical-technical performance. This is likely due to integrating tactical and technical skills during instruction and tasks tailored to the student’s motor and cognitive performance (Araújo et al., 2019; Batez et al., 2021; Pereira et al., 2013; Trajković & Kri, 2017). Beyond performance aspects, sports possess characteristics that influence daily life, and when it comes to life skills (Lerner et al., 2005), it is evident that sports also contribute to the development of life skills in a non-intentional manner (Holt, 2016). However, participating in a sports program does not guarantee positive outcomes (Coakley, 2016).

5. Conclusions

Given the findings, a practical application of this study suggests that sports education should explicitly focus on human development, specifying which aspects of human development will be addressed in each lesson plan. Therefore, schools should update their pedagogical political projects to outline how this should be implemented in teaching practice. Furthermore, it is suggested that the Brazilian federal government train school administrators and teachers in implementing pedagogical tools for comprehensive human development. This is especially important since sports practice is a means for developing more than just the tactics and techniques inherent in sports and the teaching model. However, an intervening factor may not be sufficient to alter students’ perceptions of education. Nevertheless, this research, like any other, is not without limitations. In this case, it should be considered that the students had been without in-person physical education classes for two years, which may have resulted in losing motor skills, potentially influencing the outcomes.

Author Contributions

“Conceptualization - GCTC; methodology – DA and CG; formal analysis – DA, CG, MR, and JC; investigation - DA, CG, MR, JC, MM, and GCTC; resources - - DA, CG, MR, JC, MM, and GCTC; data curation – DA; writing—original draft preparation - DA, CG, MR, JC, MM, and GCTC; writing—review and editing - DA, CG, MR, JC, MM, and GCTC; visualization - DA, CG, MR, JC, MM, and GCTC; supervision - GCTC; project administration – DA and GCTC. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted by the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE GOIÁS (approval code: CAAE 65290217.2.0000.5083).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The students and parents have obtained written informed consent to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the reported results are described in this manuscript. Due to privacy restrictions, raw data may be requested from the corresponding author upon institutional request.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) and Universidade Federal de Goiás.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
TGfU Teaching Games for Understanding
BNCC Base Nacional Comum Curricular
PYD Positive Youth Development
GPAI Game Performance Assessment Instrument
P-LSSS Life Skills Scale for Sport

References

  1. Aburachid, L.M.C.; Francisco, P.S.; Ribas, S.; Ferreira, T.; Greco, P.J. O desafio de ensinar esportes: aspectos pedagógicos a serem considerados na práxis. Corpoconsciência 2019, 23, 122–133. Available online: https://periodicoscientificos.ufmt.br/ojs/index.php/corpoconsciencia/article/view/8445.
  2. Alcalá, D.; Garijo, A. Teaching Games for Understanding: A Comprehensive Approach to Promote Student’s Motivation in Physical Education. Journal of Human Kinetics 2017, 59, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Araújo, R.; Hastie, P.; Lohse, K.R.; 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, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Arufe-Giráldez, V.; Sanmiguel-Rodríguez, A.; Ramos-Álvarez, O.; Navarro-Patón, R. News of the Pedagogical Models in Physical Education—A Quick Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2023, 20, Artigo 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Backes, A.F.; Ramos, V.; Brasil, V.Z.; Ristow, L.; Alcoser, S.D.I.; Arantes, L.C.; do Nascimento, J.V. Pedagogical principles of constructivist-oriented teaching practices in team sports. Journal of Physical Education 2023, 34, e3405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Backes, A.F.; Ramos, V.; Quinaud, R.T.; Brasil, V.Z.; Carvalho, H.M.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Nascimento, J.V. Adaptation and Validation of the Constructivist Teaching Practices Inventory in Elementary Physical Education (CTPI-EPE) for Brazilian Physical Education Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2022, 19, Article 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barba-Martín, R.A.; 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, Artigo 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Batez, M.; Petrušič, T.; Bogataj, Š.; Trajković, N. Effects of Teaching Program Based on Teaching Games for Understanding Model on Volleyball Skills and Enjoyment in Secondary School Students. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bean, C.; Kramers, S.; Forneris, T.; Camiré, M. The Implicit/Explicit Continuum of Life Skills Development and Transfer. Quest 2018, 70, 456–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bean, C.; Kramers, S.; Harlow, M. Exploring life skills transfer processes in youth hockey and volleyball. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 2022, 20, 263–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Beni, S.; Chróinín, D.N.; Fletcher, T. ‘It’s how PE should be!’: Classroom teachers’ experiences of implementing Meaningful Physical Education. European Physical Education Review 2021, 27, 666–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bowers, E.P.; Larson, L.R.; Parry, B.J. Nature as an Ecological Asset for Positive Youth Development: Empirical Evidence From Rural Communities. Frontiers in Psychology 2021, 12, Article 688574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brasil. Base Nacional Comum Curricular (BNCC); 2018. Available online: http://basenacionalcomum.mec.gov.br/abase/.
  14. Bunker, D.; Thorpe, R. The curriculum model. Rethinking games teaching 1986, 7–10. [Google Scholar]
  15. Butler, J.I. Curriculum constructions of ability: Enhancing learning through Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport, Education and Society 2006, 11, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cairney, J.; Dudley, R.; Kwan, M.; Bulten, R.; Kriellaars, R. Physical Literacy, Physical Activity and Health: Toward an Evidence-Informed Conceptual Model | Sports Medicine. Sports Medicine 2019, 49, 371–383. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-019-01063-3. [CrossRef]
  17. Camiré, M.; Santos, F. Promoting Positive Youth Development and Life Skills in Youth Sport: Challenges and Opportunities amidst Increased Professionalization 2019, 5, 27–34.
  18. Camiré, M.; Santos, F.; Newman, T.; Vella, S.; MacDonald, D.J.; Milistetd, M.; Pierce, S.; Strachan, L. Positive youth development as a guiding framework in sport research: Is it time to plan for a transition? Psychology of Sport and Exercise 2023, 69, 102505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ciampolini, V.; Milistetd, M.; Milan, F.J.; Palheta, C.E.; Silva, N.; do Nascimento, J.V. Percepções sobre um projeto esportivo organizado para o desenvolvimento de habilidades para a vida. Revista Brasileira de Psicologia do Esporte 2020, 10, Article 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Coakley, J. Positive Youth Development Through Sport: Myths, beliefs, and realities. In Positive Youth Development through Sport, 20th ed.; Routledge, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cocca, A.; Carbajal Baca, J.E.; Hernández Cruz, G.; Cocca, M. Does A Multiple-Sport Intervention Based on the TGfU Pedagogical Model for Physical Education Increase Physical Fitness in Primary School Children? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17, Article 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Collet, C.; do Nascimento, J.V.; Ramos, V.; Stefanello, J.M.F. Construção e validação do instrumento de avaliação do desempenho técnico-tático no voleibol. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano 2011, 13, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Coppola, S.; D’Anna, C.; Minghelli, V.; Vastola, R. Ecological dynamics approach in physical education to promote cognitive skills development: A review. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise 2024, 19, Article 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dalamitros, A.A.; Nikolopoulos, A.; Varsamidou, K.; Gourgoulis, V.; Zafeiroudi, A.; Loukovitis, A.; Clemente-Suárez, V.J.; Tornero-Aguilera, J.F.; Powell, C. Swimming coaches’ professional development and training practices: An international survey. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 2023, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Esperança, J.M.; Regueiras, M.L.; Brustad, R.J. Um olhar sobre o desenvolvimento positivo dos jovens através do desporto. Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2013, 22. Available online: https://ddd.uab.cat/record/114241.
  26. Fagundes, F.M.; Ribas, J.F.M. Enseñanza de los deportes para la comprensión de la lógica interna: Aproximaciones del teaching games for understanding con la visión praxiológica. Acción Motriz 2019, 23, Article 1. Available online: https://www.accionmotriz.com/index.php/accionmotriz/article/view/144.
  27. Ferraz, R.; Sortwell, A.E.; Teixeira, J.; Forte, P.A.; Marinho, D. Teaching models in physical education: Current and future perspectives. Montenegrin Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 12, 53–60. [CrossRef]
  28. Frimaio, F.; Rodrigues, R.; Casagrande, I.; Milan, D. CAPÍTULO 10 I CCompetências socioemocionais na educação física escolar: Um caminho para a inclusão, 10th ed.; 2024; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  29. Galvão, L.G.; Backes, A.F.; da Rosa, R.S.; Brasil, V.Z.; Ristow, L.; Cardoso, J.D.; do Nascimento, J.V.; Ramos, V. Beliefs about constructivist-oriented teaching practices: a study with elementary physical education teachers. Journal of Physical Education 2022, 32, e3271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. García-González, L.; Abós, A.; Diloy-Pena, 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, 6170. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/15/6170. [CrossRef]
  31. Gil-Arias, A.; Claver, F.; Práxedes, A.; Villar, F.D.; 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, 36–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. 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, e0179876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. 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 2021, 27, 366–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. González, F.J. Educação Física escolar: Entre o “rola bola” e a renovação pedagógica. Em D. I. de P. Albuquerque & M. C. S. Del-Masso (Orgs.), Desafios da educação física escolar. Cultura Acadêmica Editora. Cultura Acadêmica Editora, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  35. González-Espinosa, S.; García-Rubio, J.; Feu, S.; Ibáñez, S.J. Learning Basketball Using Direct Instruction and Tactical Game Approach Methodologies. Children 2021, 8, Article 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. González-Víllora, S.; Evangelio, C.; Sierra-Díaz, J.; Fernández-Río, J. Hybridizing pedagogical models: A systematic review. European Physical Education Review 2019, 25, 1056–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Holt, N. L. (Org.). Positive Youth Development through Sport: Second edition, 20th ed.; Routledge, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Holt, N.L.; Deal, C.J.; Pankow, K. Positive Youth Development Through Sport. Em G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Orgs.). In Handbook of Sport Psychology, 10th ed.; Wiley, 2020; pp. 429–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Indrayogi, I. Model Tactical Game dan Academic Learning Time Dalam Pembelajaran Pendidikan Jasmani. Jurnal Educatio FKIP UNMA 2021, 7, Article 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jacobs, J.M.; Wright, P.M. Transfer of Life Skills in Sport-Based Youth Development Programs: A Conceptual Framework Bridging Learning to Application. Quest 2018, 70, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Johnston, J.; Harwood, C.; Minniti, A.M. Positive Youth Development in Swimming: Clarification and Consensus of Key Psychosocial Assets. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 2013, 25, 392–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kirk, D.; Macdonald, D. Situated Learning in Physical Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 1998, 17, 376–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kirk, D.; MacPhail, A. Teaching Games for Understanding and Situated Learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 2002, 21, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lerner, R.M.; Lerner, J.V.; Almerigi, J.B.; Theokas, C.; Phelps, E.; Gestsdottir, S.; Naudeau, S.; Jelicic, H.; Alberts, A.; Ma, L.; et al. Positive Youth Development, Participation in Community Youth Development Programs, and Community Contributions of Fifth-Grade Adolescents: Findings From the First Wave Of the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development. The Journal of Early Adolescence 2005, 25, 17–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lerner, R.M.; Lerner, J.V.; von Eye, A.; Bowers, E.P.; Lewin-Bizan, S. Individual and contextual bases of thriving in adolescence: A view of the issues. Journal of Adolescence 2011, 34, 1107–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Malete, L.; McCole, D.; Tshube, T.; Mphela, T.; Maro, C.; Adamba, C.; Machuve, J.; Ocansey, R. Effects of a sport-based positive youth development program on youth life skills and entrepreneurial mindsets. PLOS ONE 2022, 17, e0261809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Morales-Belando, M.T.; Kirk, D.; Arias-Estero, J.L. A Systematic Review of Teaching Games for Understanding Intervention Studies From a Practice-Referenced Perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 2022, 93, 670–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Nascimento Junior, J.R.D.A.D.; Freire, G.L.M.; Moraes, J.F.V.N.D.; Fortes, L.D.S.; Oliveira, D.V.D.; Cronin, L. D. Does life skills development within sport predict the social behaviours and sports values of youth futsal players? International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 2022, 20, 981–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nascimento-Junior, J.R.A.D.; Fortes, L.D.S.; Freire, G.L.M.; Oliveira, D.V.D.; Fiorese, L.; Cronin, L.D. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the Portuguese Version of the Life Skills Scale for Sport. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 2020, 24, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nathan, S. Badminton instructional in Malaysian schools: A comparative analysis of TGfU and SDT pedagogical models. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Ortiz, M.; Meroño, L.; Morales-Belando, M.T.; Vaquero-Cristóbal, R.; González-Gálvez, N. Teaching Games for Understanding in Game Performance and Psychosocial Variables: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trial. Children 2023, 10, Article 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Papagiannopoulos, D.; Digelidis, N.; Syrmpas, I. PE teachers’ perceptions of and experiences with using the TGFU model in teaching team games in elementary school. Journal of Physical Education and Sport 2023, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pereira, J.A.; Mesquita, I.; Araújo, R.; Rolim, R. Estudo comparativo entre o Modelo de Educação Desportiva e o Modelo de Instrução Direta no ensino de habilidades técnico-motoras do Atletismo nas aulas de Educação Física. Revista Portuguesa de Ciências do Desporto 2013, 13, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Pill, S.; SueSee, B.; Davies, M. The Spectrum of Teaching Styles and models-based practice for physical education. European Physical Education Review 2024, 30, 142–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rocamora, I.; González-Víllora, S.; Fernández-Río, J.; Arias-Palencia, N.M. Physical activity levels, game performance and friendship goals using two different pedagogical models: Sport Education and Direct Instruction. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 2019, 24, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Romadhona, N.S.; Kurniawan, R.; Darmawan, A. Investigating the effect of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) models on motivation and academic learning time in physical education. Edu Sportivo: Indonesian Journal of Physical Education 2024, 5, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Shen, Y.; Shao, W. 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, Article 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Stojanović, D.; Momčilović, V.; Zadražnik, M.; Ilić, I.; Koničanin, A.; Padulo, J.; Russo, L.; Stojanović, T. School-Based TGfU Volleyball Intervention Improves Physical Fitness and Body Composition in Primary School Students: A Cluster-Randomized Trial. Healthcare 2023, 11, Article 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Stolz, S.; Pill, S. Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. European Physical Education Review 2014, 20, 36–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tangahu, D.F. Pengaruh model pembelajaran tgfu dan tgt terhadap academic learning time. Jurnal Kejaora (Kesehatan Jasmani Dan Olah Raga) 2019, 4, Article 2. Available online: https://ejournal.unibabwi.ac.id/index.php/kejaora/article/view/745.
  61. Tendinha, R.; Alves, M.D.; Freitas, T.; Appleton, G.; Gonçalves, L.; Ihle, A.; Gouveia, É.R.; Marques, A. Impact of Sports Education Model in Physical Education on Students’ Motivation: A Systematic Review. Children 2021, 8, Article 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Trajković, N.; Kri, T. Small-sided games vs. Instructional training for improving skill accuracy in young female volleyball players. Acta Kinesiologica 2017, 2, 72–76. Available online: http://161.53.22.65/datoteka/888721.04_CL_13_NT.pdf.
  63. Turner, A.P.; Martinek, T.J. An Investigation into Teaching Games for Understanding: Effects on Skill, Knowledge, and Game Play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 1999, 70, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Turnnidge, J.; Côté, J.; Hancock, D.J. Positive Youth Development From Sport to Life: Explicit or Implicit Transfer? Quest 2014, 66, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zetou, E.; Vernadakis, N.; Mountaki, F.; Giannakopoulos, A. Teaching life skills through volleyball passing skill to children 9-11 years old. European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science 2022, 8, Article 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zheng, S.; Ji, X.; Cheng, L.; Xu, J.; Cronin, L.D. Perceptions of the motivational climate, basic psychological needs, and life skills development in Chinese physical education students. Frontiers in Psychology 2023, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Zhou, Z.; Shek, D.T.L.; Zhu, X.; Dou, D. Positive Youth Development and Adolescent Depression: A Longitudinal Study Based on Mainland Chinese High School Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2020, 17, Article 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Results of Mean Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Specific Performance by Action (SPA).
Table 1. Results of Mean Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Specific Performance by Action (SPA).
TGFU GROUP TRADITIONAL GROUP CONTROL GROUP
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Serve 25.73 (± 2.47) 6.70(±5.97) 30.35 (±2.39) 34.34 (±1.49) 33.95 (±1.73) 32.24 (±2.02)
Reception 16.82 (±4.04) 21.33 (±3.57) 8.59 (±3.14) 18.26 (±2.26) 22.77 (±3.82) 20.59 (±1.98)
Setting 2.08 (±2.08) 12.50 (±0) 3.75 (±2.50) 13.75 (±2.42) 15.47 (±4.33) 5.35 (±2.52)
Attack 12.50 (±5.70) 8.23 (±2.60) 0 (±0) 12.55 (±3.31) 17.04 (±4.22) 15.86 (±2.18)
Defense 16.25 (±7.80) 15.00 (±3.97) 0 (±0) 19.37 (±6.87) 28.12 (±7.74) 27.34 (±2.68)
Table 2. Results of Mean Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Specific Performance by Component (SPC).
Table 2. Results of Mean Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Specific Performance by Component (SPC).
TGFU GROUP TRADITIONAL GROUP CONTROL GROUP
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Adjustment 0.15 (±0.15) 0.64 (±0.45) 3.38 (±2.10) 0.58 (±0.46) 0.37 (±0.37) 0 (±0)
Efficiency 64.70 (± 4.37) 64.28 (±5.32) 62.36 (±5.29) 60.81 (±4.54) 67.03 (±4.54) 54.39 (±4.34)
Decision-Making*a 0.15 (±0.15) 3.11 (±1.23) 0.75 (±0.52) 6.46 (±1.53) 5.55 (±1.26) 5.46 (1.30)
Effectiveness 24.08 (±4.25) 30.80 (±3.62) 31.64 (±4.62) 38.57 (±4.25) 39.99 (±3.66) 36.66 (±4.46)
* Difference between pre-test and post-test scores for the Control group. a Difference between the pre-test scores of the TGfU/Life Skills group and the Traditional group.
Table 3. Results of Mean Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Life Skills.
Table 3. Results of Mean Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Life Skills.
TGFU GROUP TRADITIONAL GROUP CONTROL GROUP
Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post
Teamwork* 3,45 (±0.95) 3.80 (±1,15) 3.50 (±1.11) 3.62 (±0.93) 3.79 (±1.09) 3.79 (±0.93)
Goal Settingᵃᵇ 2.57 (±0.69) 2.74 (±0.83) 3.75 (±1.16) 3.57 (±1.00) 4.01 (±1.06) 3.59 (±0.93)
Social Skills 3.44 (±0.90) 3.75 (±1.18) 3.59 (±1.08) 3.35 (±1.03) 3.61 (±1.31) 3.32 (±0,96)
Problem Solving 3.29 (±0.92) 3.87 (±0.88) 3.33 (±1.11) 3.22 (±0.78) 3.37 (±1.26) 3.21 (±1.08)
Emotional Skills 3.23 (±0.91) 3.68 (±1.08) 3.30 (±1.22) 3.34 (±0.70) 3.42 (±1.19) 3.39 (±0.87)
Leadership 3.17 (±0.82) 3.61 (±1.01) 3.40 (±1.05) 3.20 (±0.76) 3.32 (±1.12) 3.48 (±0.85)
Time Management 3.18 (±0.86) 3.53 (±1,27) 3.30 (±1.11) 3.00 (±0.90) 3.45 (±1.15) 3.21 (±1.11)
Communication 3.36 (±1,05) 3.67 (±1.15) 3.37 (1.12) 3.23 (±0.93) 3.59 (±1.18) 3.39 (±0.87)
* Significant difference between the TGfU/Life Skills group and the Traditional group in pre-test. ᵃ Significant difference between TGfU/Life Skills group and Traditional group in pre-test. ᵇ Significant difference between TGfU/Life Skills group and Control group in pre-test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated