Game-Centered Approaches: Different Perspectives, Same Goals-Working Together for Learning

Teaching Games for Understanding in Game Performance and Psychosocial Variables: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trial

Different authors have reported on the influence of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) intervention on game performance and psychosocial variables. This review aimed: (a) to explore the TGfU experimental studies; (b) to compare the effects of the TGfU vs. technical approach pedagogy on game performance; and (c) to determine the effect of the TGfU approach on game performance and psychosocial variables (motivational climate, task orientation, perceived competence and enjoyment). This systematic review with meta-analysis adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Four databases (PubMed, WOS, EBSCO and Google scholar metasearch) were searched. Study quality was measured with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score. Thirteen studies were included. A pooled analysis of all interventions demonstrated a large significant improvement in decision making for TGfU when compared to technical approach pedagogy (SMD = 5.93, I2 = 98%; CI (95%) = 2.15-9.71; p = 0.004) and no differences between groups for skill execution (SMD = 1.70; I2 = 8%; CI (95%) = -5.34-8.73; p = 0.60). The effect of a TGfU intervention on game performance is strong (decision making, execution skills and tactical skills). Moderate evidence is reported by psychosocial variables (motivational climate, task orientation, perception of motivation and achievement in physical education). In addition, it is unclear its effect on perceived competence, enjoyment, knowledge of the game and intention to be physically active. TGfU intervention could be an appropriate approach for males and females in the context of education or sport. There is a need for a greater number of studies.

Always Pay Attention to Which Model of Motor Learning You Are Using

This critical review considers the epistemological and historical background of the theoretical construct of motor learning for a more differentiated understanding. More than simply reflecting critically on the models that are used to solve problems-whether they are applied in therapy, physical education, or training practice-this review seeks to respond constructively to the recent discussion caused by the replication crisis in life sciences. To this end, an in-depth review of contemporary motor learning approaches is provided, with a pragmatism-oriented clarification of the researcher's intentions on fundamentals (what?), subjects (for whom?), time intervals (when?), and purpose (for what?). The complexity in which the processes of movement acquisition, learning, and refinement take place removes their predictable and linear character and therefore, from an applied point of view, invites a great deal of caution when trying to make generalization claims. Particularly when we attempt to understand and study these phenomena in unpredictable and dynamic contexts, it is recommended that scientists and practitioners seek to better understand the central role that the individual and their situatedness plays in the system. In this way, we will be closer to making a meaningful and authentic contribution to the advancement of knowledge, and not merely for the sake of renaming inventions.