مقایسه روش های تدریس دستوری و دوسویه بر عملکرد و یادگیری شوت ثابت بسکتبال با تکیه بر مدل جنتایل

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه رفتار حرکتی، دانشکده علوم ورزشی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

2 گروه رفتار حرکتی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران

3 گروه آمار، دانشکده علوم ریاضی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، ایران

چکیده

روش های تدریس متفاوتی برای فراگیران مورد استفاده قرار می گیرد، اما توافق نظری در این خصوص که کدام روش بهره وری بیشتری دارد، صورت نگرفته است. لذا هدف از مطالعه حاضر مقایسه اثر روش های تدریس دستوری و دوسویه بر عملکرد و یادگیری شوت ثابت بسکتبال با تکیه بر مدل جنتایل می باشد. پژوهش حاضر از نوع نیمه تجربی بود که به صورت پیش آزمون و پس آزمون انجام شد. شرکت کنندگان شامل 43 دختر نوجوان داوطلب بودند که به صورت نمونه گیری در دسترس انتخاب شدند. افراد به صورت تصادفی به سه گروه روش تدریس دستوری، دوسویه و کنترل تقسیم شدند. شرکت کنندگان تکلیف پرتاب آزاد بسکتبال را مطابق با مدل جنتایل تمرین کردند و عملکرد آنها طی چهار مرحله پیش آزمون، یادداری فوری و یادداری های با تاخیر اندازه گیری شد. برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها از روش تحلیل واریانس مرکب با اندازه های تکراری و آزمون تعقیبی بونفرونی استفاده گردید. هردو روش دستوری و دو سویه بر عملکرد شرکت کنندگان تاثیر معنی داری داشت (0.05≥P)، اما تفاوت معنا داری بین دو شیوه دستوری و دوسویه دیده نشد(0.05 ≤ P). نتایج کلی تحقیق بیانگر این است که در فرایند یادگیری این مهارت، هر دو روش توانست اثرات مثبتی بر آموزش مهارت داشته باشند و موجب پیشرفت مهارت گردد.

چکیده تصویری

مقایسه روش های تدریس دستوری و دوسویه بر عملکرد و یادگیری شوت ثابت بسکتبال با تکیه بر مدل جنتایل

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

The comparison of command teaching style with reciprocal teaching style on the performance and learning of Basketball shoot based on Gentile’s Model

نویسندگان [English]

  • Soheyla Goharrokhi 1
  • Alireza Saberi Kakhki 2
  • Mehdi Sohrabi 2
  • Mehdi Jabbari 3
1 ِDepartment of Motor Behavior, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
2 Department of Motor Behavior, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad(FUM), Mashhad, Iran
3 Department of Statistics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran
چکیده [English]

Different teaching styles are used by the trainers, but there is not any theoretical agreement on the style that will have the most productivity. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effect of command and reciprocal teaching styles on the performance and learning of basketball throw with emphasize to Jentile Model. This is a quasi-experimental study that was conducted in pre-test and post-test phases. Participants included 43 volunteer teenage girls who were selected by available sampling. The participants were randomly divided into three groups: command, reciprocal and control. Participants practiced basketball free throws in accordance with the Gentile’s model and their performance was measured in four steps including pre-test, immediate retention and delay retentions. For analysis of data, mixed ANOVA with repeated measures and Bonferroni tests were used. Both command and reciprocal styles had a significant effect on participants' performance (P≤ 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between these styles (P≥ 0.05). Based on the results, it can be said that both styles can have a positive effect on the training process and improve this skill.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Teaching
  • Learning
  • Gentile
  • Basketball
  • performance

[1] Hoseimni, L. (2013). The effect of self-regulation and external focus of attention on distance learning in young girl’s badminton service. Research Journal Al-Zahra University in Motor Behavior, 1, 1-10.

[2] Hossein Pour, A. (1996). Investigation of teachers' knowledge about active teaching methods (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Tehran, Tehran.
[in Persian]

[3] Doherty, J. (2010). Teaching styles in physical education and Mosston’s spectrum. Kahperd Journal, 48(1),4-6.

[4] Dicke, T., Elling, J., Schmeck, A., & Leutner, D. (2015). Reducing reality shock: The effects of classroom management skills training on beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 1-12.

[5] Garekhani, H., Solemani, M., & Solemani, A. (2015). Identification of effective factors on utilization of teaching active methods among Ilam Physical Education Teachers. Motor Behavior and Management Journal, 11(22),169-76.[in Persian[

[6] Khan Mohamadi, R. (2007). Evaluation of teaching Physical Education barriers from Ahwaz physical education teachers perspective (Unpublished master’s thesis). Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

[7] Porter, J. M., Landin, D., Hebert, E. P., & Baum, B. (2007). The effects of three levels of contextual interference on performance outcomes and movement patterns in golf skills. International journal of sports science & Coaching, 2(3), 243-55.

[8] Jarus, T., & Goverover, Y. (1999). Effects of contextual interference and age on acquisition, retention, and transfer of motor skill. Perceptual and motor skills, 88(2), 437-47.

[9] Landin, D., & Hebert, E. P. (1997). A comparison of three practice schedules along the contextual interference continuum. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 68(4), 357-61.

[10] Azizi, H., & Hosseini, F. (2015). Effect of external and internal focus of attention instructions in field dependence and independence on performance and learning of dart throwin. Motor Behavior, 7(22), 131-48.

[11] Magill, R. A. (2011). Motor learning: Concept and application. USA: McGraw Hill

[12] Bonnie, P. (1999). physical education methods for classroom teachers. USA: Human Kinestics.

[13] Armourand, K. M., & Yelling, M. (2004). Professional edevelopmentí and Professional eLearningí: Bridging the gap for experienced physical education teachers. European Physical Education Review, 10(1), 71-93.

[14] Portman, P. A. (1995). Who is having fun in physical education classes? Experiences of sixth-grade students in elementary and middle schools. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 14(4), 445-53.

[15] Hewitt, M., & Edwards, K. (2011). Self-identified teaching styles of junior development and club professional tennis coaches in Australia. ITF Coaching and Sport Science Review, 55, 6-8.

[16] Snoxell, E. (2014). The effect of teaching styles upon skill improvement and perceived enjoyment in Badminton in year 7 boys. Retrieved from http;//www.multi sport.co.uk/Multi_Sport_Investigation.

[17] McCormack, A. (1997). Classroom management problems, strategies and influences in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 3(2), 102-15.

[18] Khandaghi, M. A., & Farasat, M. (2011). The effect of teacher's teaching style on students’ adjustment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1391-4. ]in Persian[

[19] Lassonde, C. A., Galman, S., & Kosnik, CM. (2009). Self-study research methodologies for teacher educators. Unpublished manuscript.

[20] Hillyard, C., Gillespie, D., & Littig, P. (2010). University students’ attitudes about learning in small groups after frequent participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 9-20.

[21] Macfadyen, T., & Bailey, R. (2002). Teaching physical education. London: Continuum.

[22] Mawer, M. (2014). Effective teaching of physical education. New York: Routledge.

[23] Dinkelman, T. (2003). Self-study in teacher education: A means and ends tool for promoting reflective teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(1),6-18.

[24] Hadi-Tabassum, S. (2007). Language, Space and Power: A Critical Look at Bilingual Education. Language, 11(1),1-4.

[25]Mirzaei, M., & Azizian, F. (2012). Assessment of interactive and Task-Based Learning (TBL) methods compared to the conventional method of undergraduate teaching. Journal of Medical Education and Development, 7(1), 10-17.