Cited by 4Physical Education and PedagogySports and Physical Education ResearchPhysical education and sports games research

The role of nonlinear pedagogy in physical education

Chow, Jia Yi, Davids, Keith, Button, Chris, Shuttleworth, Rick, Renshaw, Ian, Araújo, Duarte·2007·Review of Educational Research

Abstract

In physical education, the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) pedagogical strategy has attracted significant attention from theoreticians and educators for allowing the development of game education through a tactic-to-skill approach involving the use of modified games. However, some have proposed that as an educational framework, it lacks adequate theoretical grounding from a motor learning perspective to empirically augment its perceived effectiveness. The authors examine the literature base providing the theoretical underpinning for TGfU and explore the potential of a nonlinear pedagogical framework, based on dynamical systems theory, as a suitable explanation for TGfU’s effectiveness in physical education. Nonlinear pedagogy involves manipulating key task constraints on learners to facilitate the emergence of functional movement patterns and decision-making behaviors. The authors explain how interpreting motor learning processes from a nonlinear pedagogical framework can underpin the educational principles of TGfU and provide a theoretical rationale for guiding the implementation of learning progressions in physical education.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/003465430305615

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Task simplification maintains relevant information-movement couplings and constraint interactions while blocking degrees of freedom to meet the athlete's skill level.

    “This approach of using “scaled-down versions of tasks [that] are created in practice and performed by learners” (Chow et al., 2007, p. 270) aims at maintaining relevant information-movement couplings and constraint interactions, while blocking degrees of freedom in order to meet the athlete's skill level (Davids et al., 2008; Correia et al., 2019).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., Shuttleworth, R., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D.
Affiliations
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • Australian Institute of Sport
  • Universidade Técnica de Lisboa (PT)
Venue
Review of Educational Research
Published
2007-09
Volume
77
Issue
3
Pages
251-278
ISSN
  • 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1046
OpenAlex
W1741291520
Cited by
1
References
5
Citations by year
2018: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Review of Educational Research (publishedVersion)
  • SHURA (Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive) (Sheffield Hallam University) (submittedVersion)
  • Faculty of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Physical Education and Pedagogy
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Physical education and sports games research
Keywords
Teaching Games for Understanding, nonlinear pedagogy, dynamical systems theory, motor learning, game education, modified games, task constraints, learning progression, physical education pedagogy, decision-making in sport

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review