Fundamentos pedagógicos de la enseñanza comprensiva del deporteuna revisión de la literatura

  1. Abad Robles, Manuel Tomás
  2. Benito Peinado, Pedro José
  3. Giménez Fuentes-Guerra, Francisco Javier
  4. Robles Rodríguez, José
Revista:
Cultura, ciencia y deporte

ISSN: 1696-5043

Año de publicación: 2013

Volumen: 8

Número: 23

Páginas: 137-146

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.12800/CCD.V8I23.300 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Cultura, ciencia y deporte

Resumen

En los últimos años ha surgido un especial interés por desarrollar una teoría de conocimientos relativa a la enseñanza de los deportes. En este sentido, destaca el modelo de enseñanza comprensiva del deporte o Tea- ching Games for Understanding Model y sus variantes. Este enfoque ha sido relacionado con las teorías del aprendizaje cognitivo y constructivista y con el aprendizaje situado, y es considerado innovador en la enseñanza de los deportes. El objetivo de este trabajo fue describir y analizar las bases sobre las que se sustenta la enseñanza comprensiva del deporte, para lo cual se realizó una revisión bibliográfica sistemática. Los datos indicaron que el enfoque comprensivo se basa, fundamentalmente, en premisas relacionadas con las teorías del aprendizaje cognitivo, constructivista y aprendizaje situado. En este sentido, destacan algunos elementos que hacen referencia al deporte como contenido de enseñanza (juegos modificados, enseñanza contextualizada, transferencia del aprendizaje y enseñanza técnico-táctica); al alumno/jugador (centrado en el alumno/ jugador, ideas previas y motivación); y al profesor/entrenador (papel del profesor/entrenador, progresión en la enseñanza, resolución de problemas y conocimiento de resultados interrogativo).

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Almond, L. (1986). Reflecting on themes: A games classification. En R. D. Thorpe, D. J. Bunker & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 71-72). Loughborough, UK: University of Technology, Loughbo-rough.
  • Armstrong, S. (1988). Games for understanding-breaking new ground. Bulletin of Physical Education, 24(3), 28-32.
  • Benito, P. J., Díaz, V., Calderón, F. J., Peinado, A. B., Martín, C., Álvarez, M., & Pérez, J. (2007). La revisión bibliográfica sistemática en fisio-logía del ejercicio: recomendaciones prácticas. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte, 6(3), 1-11.
  • Bunker, D. J, & Thorpe, R. D. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8.
  • Butler, J. (2005). TGfU pet-agogy: Old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education y Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 225-240.
  • Carpenter, E. J. (2010). The tactical games model sport experience: An examination of student motivation and game performance during an ultimate frisbee unit (Tesis doctoral). Recuperada de ProQuest ERIC: http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1216&context=open_access_dissertations
  • Curtner-Smith, M. D. (1996). Teaching for understanding. Using games invention with elementary children. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 76(3), 33-37.
  • Clemente, F., & Mendes, R. (2011). Aprender o jogo jogando: uma justifi-caçao transdisciplinar. Exedra: Revista Científica, 5, 27-36.
  • Diaz-Cueto, M., Hernandez-Alvarez, J. L., & Castejon, F. J. (2010). Teaching games for understanding to in-service physical education teachers: Rewards and barriers regarding the changing model of teaching sport. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(4), 378-398.
  • Doolittle, S. A. (1995). Teaching net games to low-skilled students: A teaching for understanding approach. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 66(7), 18-23.
  • Dyson, B., Griffin, L. L., & Hastie, P. (2004). Sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning: Theoretical and pedagogical considerations. Quest, 56(2), 226-240.
  • Fernández-Ríos, L., & Buela-Casal, G. (2009). Standards for the preparation and writing of psychology review articles. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 9(2), 329-344.
  • French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Rink, J. E., Taylor, K., & Hussey, K. (1996). The effects of a 3-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical on skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 418-438.
  • Gray, S., & Sproule, J. (2011). Developing pupils' performance in team invasion games. Physical Education y Sport Pedagogy, 16(1), 15-32.
  • Gréhaigne, J. F., Caty, D., & Godbout, P. (2010). Modelling ball circulation in invasion team sports: A way to promote learning games through understanding. Physical Education y Sport Pedagogy, 15(3), 257-270.
  • Gréhaigne, J. F., & Godbout, P. (1995). Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest, 47, 490-555.
  • Gréhaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Caty, D. (2009). Learning games through understanding: New jobs for students! International Journal of Physical Education, 46(4), 30-38.
  • Gubacs-Collins, K., & Olsen, E. B. (2010). Implementing a tactical games approach with sport education. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation y Dance, 81(3), 36-42.
  • Harvey, S., Cushion, C. J., & Massa-Gonzalez, A. N. (2010). Learning a new method: Teaching games for understanding in the coaches' eyes. Physical Education y Sport Pedagogy, 15(4), 361-382.
  • Hastie, P. A., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid sport education-teaching games for understanding unit on one teacher and his students. Physical Education y Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 1-27.
  • Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B., & García, E. (2002). Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(2), 162-176.
  • 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 y Sport Pedagogy, 11(2), 101-118.
  • Hopper, T. (2002). Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis. JOPERD: The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation y Dance, 73(7), 44-48.
  • Hubball, H., Lambert, J., & Hayes, S. (2007). Theory to practice: Using the games for understanding approach in the teaching of invasion games. Physical y Health Education Journal, 73(3), 14-20.
  • Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(2), 177-192.
  • Kirk, D., & McDonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(3), 376-387.
  • Launder, A., & Piltz, W. (2006). Beyond 'understanding' to skilful play in games, through play practice. New Zealand Physical Educator, 39(1), 47-57.
  • Light, R. (2004). Coaches' experiences of game sense: Opportunities and challenges. Physical Education y Sport Pedagogy, 9(2), 115-131.
  • Light, R. (2005). Introduction. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 211-212.
  • Light, R. (2006). Game sense: Innovation or just good coaching? New Zealand Physical Educator, 39(1), 8-19.
  • Light, R. (2008). Complex learning theory - its epistemology and its assumptions about learning: Implications for physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 21-37.
  • Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest, 55(2), 161-176.
  • Light, R., & Tan, S. (2006). Culture, embodied experience and teachers' development of TGfU in Australia and Singapore. European Physical Education Review, 12(1), 99-117.
  • MacPhail, A., Kirk, D., & Griffin, L. (2008). Throwing and catching as relational skills in game play: Situated learning in a modified game unit. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27, 100-115.
  • Mandigo, J., Butler, J., & Hopper, T. (2007). What is teaching games for understanding? A canadian perspective. Physical y Health Education Journal, 73(2), 14-20.
  • Martin, A. J., & Gaskin, C. J. (2004). An integrated physical education model. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 37, 61-69.
  • Memmert, D., & König, S. (2007). Teaching games in elementary schools. International Journal of Physical Education, XLIV(2), 54-67.
  • Memmert, D., & Roth, K. (2007). The effects of non-specific and specific concepts on tactical creativity in team ball sports. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(12), 1423-1432.
  • Méndez-Giménez, A., Fernández-Río, J., & Casey, A. (2012). Using the TGFU tactical hierarchy to enhance student understanding of game play. Expanding the target games category. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte, 7(20), 135-141.
  • Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2006). Teaching sport concepts and skills. A tactical games approach (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL. United States of America: Human Kinetics.
  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264-269.
  • Okade, Y., & Yoshinaga, T. (2000). Teaching games for understanding (TGFU) in England: To consider subject matter contents and teaching methods in tactical games approach. Bulletin of Institute of Health y Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 23, 21-35.
  • Pill, S. (2008). Play with purpose: Tteaching games for understanding. ACHPER Active y Healthy Magazine, 15(1), 7-10.
  • Pope, C. (2005). Once more with feeling: Affect and playing with the TGfU model. Physical Education y Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 271-286.
  • Randall, L. (2008). Implementing TGfU in the field. Physical y Health Education Journal, 74(1), 16-20.
  • Rink, J. E. (1996). Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games: Introduction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 397-398.
  • Roberts, S. J. (2011). Teaching games for understanding: The difficulties and challenges experienced by participation cricket coaches. Physical Education y Sport Pedagogy, 16(1), 33-48.
  • Rovegno, I., & Bandhauer, D. (1997). Psychological dispositions that facilitated and sustained the development of knowledge of a constructivist approach to physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(2), 136-154.
  • Salter, D. G. (1999). Teaching games and sport in New Zealand health and physical education curriculum. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand, 32(1), 17-20.
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., & Botella, J. (2010). Revisiones sistemáticas y meta-análisis: Herramientas para la práctica profesional. Papeles del Psicó-logo, 31(1), 7-17.
  • Silverman, S. (1997). Is the tactical approach to teaching games better than a skills approach? Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 68(7), 5.
  • Singleton, E. (2009). From command to constructivism: Canadian secondary school physical education curriculum and teaching games for understanding. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(2), 321-342.
  • Singleton, E. (2010). More than "just a game": History, pedagogy, and games in physical education. Physical y Health Education Journal, 76(2), 22-27.
  • Spackman, L. (1985). Guidelines for practice in the teaching of games. En C.O.N.I. Scuola dello Sport (Ed.), Teaching team sports. International congress (pp. 209-215). Roma, 1983: C.O.N.I. A.I.E.S.E.P.
  • Strean, W. B., & Holt, N. L. (2000). Coaches', athletes', and parents' perceptions of fun in youth sports: Assumptions about learning and implications for practice. Avante, 6(3), 83-98.
  • Thorpe, R. D., Bunker, D. J., & Almond, L. (1984). A change in the focus of teaching games. En M. Piéron & G. Graham (Eds.), Sport pedagogy: Olympic Scientific Congress proceedings (pp. 163-169). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
  • Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T. J. (1995). Teaching for understanding: A model for improving decision making during game play. Quest, 47(1), 44-63.
  • Wallhead, T. L., & Deglau, D. (2004). Effect of a tactical games approach on student motivation in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75(1), A83-A84.
  • Wang, C. L., & Ha, A. (2009). Preservice teachers' perception of teaching games for understanding: A Hong Kong perspective. European Physical Education Review, 15(3), 407-429.
  • Wright, S., McNeill, M., & Butler, J. I. (2004). The role that socialization can play in promoting teaching games for understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 75(3), 46-52.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet