Modalities of Student Responses in Football Games According to Players’ Cognitive Structures
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Method
2.1. Participants
- Group 1 (G1) (16 students in grade 5, 8 girls and 8 boys aged 10 ± 0.3 years) consisted of four equivalent teams. Each team was made up of 4 players (2 boys and 2 girls) that are registered in the 5th year of primary school.
- Group 2 (G2) (grade 9) experienced the same training but included students aged 14 ± 0.4 years that are enrolled in the 9th year.
- Group 3 (G3) (grade 11) experienced the same training but included students aged 16 ± 0.4 years that were registered in the 2nd year of secondary school.
2.2. Procedure
- “No answer”: the student does not answer.
- “Off topic”: the student answers, but his answer remains inadequate to the question asked.
- “Beginning of decision”: the student answers, but without providing an explanation.
- “A decision with justification”: while proposing a simple justification.
- “At least one alternative with justification”: the student provides several solutions in the form of options, often with complex reasons.
- “Reproach”: it is the inadequacy between the grammatical form of the utterance and its aim.
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Category “No Answer”
3.2. Category “Off Topic”
3.3. Category “a Beginning of Decision”
3.4. Category “Decision with Justification”
3.5. Category “At Least One Alternative with Justification”
3.6. Category “Reproach”
4. Discussion
5. Limitations
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix
References
- Lave, J. Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Wright, J.; Forrest, G. A Social Semiotic Analysis of Knowledge Construction and Games Centred Approaches to Teaching. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2007, 12, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roth, W.-M. Learning Process Studies: Examples from Physics. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 1998, 20, 1019–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delignières, D. Risque Perçu et Apprentissage Moteur. In Apprentissage Moteur: Rôle des Représentations; EPS: Paris, France, 1991; pp. 157–171. [Google Scholar]
- Darnis, F.; Lafont, L.; Menaut, A. Interactions Verbales En Situation de Co-Construction de Règles d’action Au Hand-Ball: L’exemple de Deux Dyades à Fonctionnement Contrasté. E J. Rech. Sur L’Intervention En Educ. Phys. Sport. 2007, 11, 56-17. [Google Scholar]
- Loewen, S.; Sato, M. Interaction and Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Lang. Teach. 2018, 51, 285–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grangeat, M. Dimensions and Modalities of Inquiry-Based Teaching: Understanding the Variety of Practices. Educ. Inq. 2016, 7, 29863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Grangeat, M. Modéliser les Enseignements Scientifiques Fondés Sur Les Démarches D’investigation: Développement des Compétences Professionnelles, Apport du Travail Collectif; Presses universitaires de Grenoble: Grenoble, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Perret-Clermont, A.-N. La Construction de l’intelligence Dans l’interaction Sociale; Peter Lang AG: Bern, Germany, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Brousseau, G.; Balacheff, N. Théorie Des Situations Didactiques: Didactique Des Mathématiques 1970–1990; La pensée sauvage Grenoble: Grenoble, France, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Schubauer-Leoni, M.-L. Interactions Didactiques et Interactions Sociales: Quels Phénomènes et Quelles Constructions Conceptuelles. Skholê Cah. Rech. Dév. 1997, 7, 102–134. [Google Scholar]
- Johsua, S.; Dupin, J.-J. Introduction à La Didactique Des Sciences et Des Mathématiques; Presses universitaires de France Paris: Paris, France, 1993; Volume 327. [Google Scholar]
- Brousseau, G. Fondements et Méthodes de La Didactique Des Mathématiques. Fond. Méthodes Didact. Mathématiques 1986, 7, 33–115. [Google Scholar]
- Gréhaigne, J.F.; Godbout, P. Observation, Critical Thinking and Transformation: Three Key Elements for a Constructivist Perspective of the Learning Process in Team Sports. Educ. Life 1998, 109–118. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332605897_Observation_critical_thinking_and_transformation_three_key_elements_for_a_constructivist_perspective_of_the_learning_process_in_team_sports (accessed on 20 April 2021).
- Caverni, J.-P. L’éthique Dans Les Sciences Du Comportement; FeniXX: Paris, France, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Sahli, H.; Selmi, O.; Zghibi, M.; Hill, L.; Rosemann, T.; Knechtle, B.; Clemente, F.M. Effect of the Verbal Encouragement on Psychophysiological and Affective Responses during Small-Sided Games. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben Khalifa, W.; Zouaoui, M.; Zghibi, M.; Azaiez, F. Effects of Verbal Interactions between Students on Skill Development, Game Performance and Game Involvement in Soccer Learning. Sustainability 2021, 13, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gréhaigne, J.-F.; Billard, M.; Laroche, J.-Y. L’enseignement Des Sports Collectifs à l’école: Conception, Construction et Évaluation; De Boeck Supérieur: Brussels, Belgium, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Rabatel, A. Interactions Orales En Contexte Didactique: Mieux (Se) Comprendre Pour Mieux (Se) Parler et Pour Mieux (s’) Apprendre; Presses Universitaires Lyon: Lyon, France, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- van Aalst, J. Distinguishing Knowledge-Sharing, Knowledge-Construction, and Knowledge-Creation Discourses. Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn. 2009, 4, 259–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vermersch, P. Du Faire Au Dire (l’entretien d’explicitation). Cah. Pédagogiques 1995, 336, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
- Binder, P.-E.; Holgersen, H.; Moltu, C. Staying Close and Reflexive: An Explorative and Reflexive Approach to Qualitative Research on Psychotherapy. Nord. Psychol. 2012, 64, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zghibi, M.; Sahli, H.; Bennour, N.; Guinoubi, C.; Guerchi, M.; Hamdi, M. The Pupil’s Discourse and Action Projects: The Case of Third Year High School Pupils in Tunisia. Creat. Educ. 2013, 4, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brousseau, G.; Warfield, V. Didactic Situations in Mathematics Education. In Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education; Lerman, S., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 206–213. ISBN 978-3-030-15789-0. [Google Scholar]
- Lehmans, A.; Cordier, A. Transliteracy and Knowledge Formats. In European Conference on Information Literacy; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 118–127. [Google Scholar]
- Wallian, N.; Chang, C.W. Sémiotique de l’action Motrice et Des Activités Langagières: Vers Une Épistémologie Des Savoirs Co-Construits En Sports Collectifs. In Configurations du Jeu: Débat D’idées & Apprentissage du Football et des Sports Collectifs; Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté: Besançon, France, 2007; pp. 146–164. [Google Scholar]
- Wallian, N. Sémiotique de l’agir enseignant en EPS : Figures d’action et registres interprétatifs en milieu difficile. Carrefours Educ. 2015, 40, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cushion, C.J. Reflection and Reflective Practice Discourses in Coaching: A Critical Analysis. Sport Educ. Soc. 2018, 23, 82–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stecanela, N.; Zen, A.C.; Pauletti, F.B. Action Research and Teacher Education: The Use of Research in a Classroom for the Transformation of Reality. IJAR Int. J. Action Res. 2019, 15, 9–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gréhaigne, J.-F.; Godbout, P. Debate of Ideas and Understanding with Regard to Tactical Learning in Team Sports. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2020, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Godbout, P.; Gréhaigne, J.-F. Regulation of Tactical Learning in Team Sports–The Case of the Tactical-Decision Learning Model. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godbout, P.; Gréhaigne, J.-F. Revisiting the Tactical-Decision Learning Model. Quest 2020, 72, 430–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Light, R.L.; Clarke, J. Understanding the Complexity of Learning through Movement. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2021, 26, 268–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farias, C.; Valério, C.; Mesquita, I. Sport Education as a Curriculum Approach to Student Learning of Invasion Games: Effects on Game Performance and Game Involvement. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2018, 17, 56–65. [Google Scholar]
- Lave, J.; Wenger, E. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Sensevy, G.; Mercier, A. Agir Ensemble. In L’action Conjointe Du Professeur et Des Élèves Dans Le Système Didactique; Presses Universitaires de Rennes: Rennes, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. La Notion d’interaction En Linguistique: Origines, Apports, Bilan. Lang. Fr. 1998, 1, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, W.; Marshall, S.; Batterham, A.; Hanin, J. Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise Science. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giordan, A.; De Vecchi, G. Les Origines Du Savoir: Concept, Apprenants Aux Concepts Scientifiques; Neuchâtel-Paris Delachaux Nestlé: Paris, France, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Austin, J.L. Quand Dire, C’est Faire= How to Do Things with Words; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Ricoeur, P. Du Texte à l’action. In Essais d’herméneutique, t. 2. Média Diffusion; Seuil: Paris, France, 2013; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. Éthique et Ethos Dans Les Pratiques Langagières et Les Descriptions Linguistiques. In Morales Langagières Autour des Propositions de Recherche de Bernard Gardin; Caitucoli, R.D.-L.C., Ed.; Publications des universités de Rouen et du Havre: Rouen, France, 2008; pp. 73–94. [Google Scholar]
- Massey, S.L.; Pence, K.L.; Justice, L.M.; Bowles, R.P. Educators’ Use of Cognitively Challenging Questions in Economically Disadvantaged Preschool Classroom Contexts. Early Educ. Dev. 2008, 19, 340–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Kinzie, M.B. Teacher Question and Student Response with Regard to Cognition and Language Use. Instr. Sci. 2012, 40, 857–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramos, A.; Coutinho, P.; Davids, K.; Mesquita, I. Developing Players’ Tactical Knowledge Using Combined Constraints-Led and Step-Game Approaches—A Longitudinal Action-Research Study. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gréhaigne, J.-F.; Godbout, P. Dynamic Systems Theory and Team Sport Coaching. Quest 2014, 66, 96–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sessions | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
S1–S4 | S5–S8 | S9–S12 | ||
Group1 | No answer | 2.63ν*± 1.71c** | 2.19 ± 1.33a***c*** | 1.44 ± 0.73a***c*** |
Off topic | 0.81 ± 0.75 | 0.50 ± 0.55 | 0.75 ± 0.68 a*c** | |
A beginning of decision | 2.25 ± 1.18 c* | 2.75 ± 1.13c*** | 3.81є** ν** ± 1.42 | |
Decision with justification | 0.44 ± 0.51 | 0.69 ± 0.70 | 1.38є* ν** ± 1.15 | |
At least one alternative with justification | 0.13 ± 0.81 | 0.31 ± 0.60c** | 0.68ν* ± 0.94 | |
Reproach | 0.94 ± 0.85 | 0.81 ± 0.66 | 0.81 ± 0.75 | |
Group2 | No answer | 1.56†**ν**± 1.03 | 0.75є** ± 0.78 | 0.13 ± 0.34 |
Off topic | 0.68†*ν* ± 0.70 | 0.19 ± 0.40 | 0.25 ± 0.44 | |
A beginning of decision | 1.50 ± 0.97 | 2.13 ± 1.09b* | 3.25є* ν** ± 1.62 | |
Decision with justification | 2.44 ± 1.50a*** | 3.00 ± 1.26a*** b* | 4.25є* ν** ± 1.53a*** | |
At least one alternative with justification | 0.43 ± 0.63a*** | 0.88 ± 0.96 | 1.56 ν**± 1.26 | |
Reproach | 0.88 ± 1.02 | 0.88 ± 0.96 | 0.88 ± 0.89 | |
Group3 | No answer | 0.88†*ν*± 0.96 | 0.44 ± 0.63 | 0.19 ± 0.41 |
Off topic | 0.56†*ν*± 0.63 | 0.13 ± 0.34 | 0.06 ± 0.25 | |
A beginning of decision | 1.19 ± 1.33 | 1.12 ± 0.96 | 2.50 є* ± 1.67 | |
Decision with justification | 1.68 ± 1.32c* | 2.06 ± 1.12c** | 3.25є* ν** ± 1.73c* | |
At least one+ alternative with justification | 1.13 ± 0.80b** | 1.63 ± 1.20 | 1.63 ± 1.08 | |
Reproach | 0.81 ± 0.75 | 0.81 ± 0.64 | 0.81 ± 0.65 |
Main effects | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sessions | Groups | Interaction | ||||
F (1.45) | ɳ2 | F (2.45) | ɳ2 | F (2.45) | ɳ2 | |
No answer | 37.31*** | 0.45 | 16.56*** | 0.42 | 1.77 | 0.07 |
Off topic | 11.22*** | 0.20 | 2.00 | 0.08 | 5.41** | 0.19 |
A beginning of decision | 30.90*** | 0.41 | 7.26** | 0.24 | 0.55 | 0.02 |
Decision with justification | 29.66*** | 0.40 | 23.42*** | 0.51 | 0.97 | 0.04 |
At least one alternative with justification | 12.93*** | 0.22 | 9.19*** | 0.29 | 1.43 | 0.06 |
Reproach | 0.09 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.04 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zghibi, M.; Sahli, H.; Ben Khalifa, W.; Ghouili, H.; Gharbi, M.; Haddad, M. Modalities of Student Responses in Football Games According to Players’ Cognitive Structures. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10193. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810193
Zghibi M, Sahli H, Ben Khalifa W, Ghouili H, Gharbi M, Haddad M. Modalities of Student Responses in Football Games According to Players’ Cognitive Structures. Sustainability. 2021; 13(18):10193. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810193
Chicago/Turabian StyleZghibi, Makrem, Hajer Sahli, Wissam Ben Khalifa, Hatem Ghouili, Maher Gharbi, and Monoem Haddad. 2021. "Modalities of Student Responses in Football Games According to Players’ Cognitive Structures" Sustainability 13, no. 18: 10193. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810193