The purpose of the present work was to explore whether fourth-grade physical education students improved their game performance, knowledge and psychosocial variables with Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) to a greater extent after an eight-lesson period in comparison to a 14-lesson period. The study followed a mixed-methods approach in which the design consisted of a first assessment, a second assessment after Lesson 9 (eight-lesson period) and a third assessment after Lesson 16 (14-lesson period). A TGfU floorball intervention was carried out between assessments. The participants (n
= 40) were in their fourth year of elementary education. According to students’ background and setting, we decided to implement three broad and interrelated strategies to enact the intervention built on the TGfU pedagogical features. Data were collected through Game Performance Assessment Instrument, knowledge questionnaire, enjoyment, perceived competence and intention to be physically active scales and semi-structured interviews. Quantitatively, Friedman’s χ2
was used to explore differences in the variables and Wilcoxon’s Z
post-hoc comparisons were performed to determine: (a) first–second and first–third assessment differences; and (b) second–third assessment differences. Qualitatively, data were open and axial coded line-by-line and incident-to-incident in sub-themes. The quantitative results show no significant differences between the two periods (p
> 0.05). However, there were improvements after both periods compared with the first assessment (p
< 0.05). The qualitative information supported that the pedagogical strategies implemented could be key to explain the similarities between the two practice volumes. In conclusion, the amount of practice should not be considered as the only variable in the design of interventions with TGfU.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited