Next Article in Journal
The Effects of a Physically Active Lifestyle on the Health of Former Professional Football Players
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of 7-Week Hip Thrust Versus Back Squat Resistance Training on Performance in Adolescent Female Soccer Players
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Influence of Aerobic Power on Youth Players’ Tactical Behavior and Network Properties during Football Small-Sided Games
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Study of Two Intervention Programmes for Teaching Soccer to School-Age Students

by
Juan M. García-Ceberino
*,
Sebastián Feu
and
Sergio J. Ibáñez
Optimization of Training and Sports Performance Research Group (GOERD), Department of Didactics of Music, Plastic and Body Expression, Sports Science Faculty, University of Extremadura, 10004 Cáceres, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sports 2019, 7(3), 74; https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7030074
Submission received: 30 January 2019 / Revised: 17 March 2019 / Accepted: 21 March 2019 / Published: 26 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Training Process in Soccer Players)

Abstract

:
The objective of this study was to design and analyse the differences and/or similarities of two homogeneous intervention programmes (didactic units) based on two different teaching methods, Direct Instruction (DI) and Tactical Games Approach (TGA), for teaching school-age soccer. The sample was composed of 58 tasks, 29 for each intervention programme. The pedagogical and external Training Load (eTL) variables recorded in the Integral System for Training Tasks Analysis (SIATE) were studied. The two intervention programmes were compared using Chi-Square, Mann-Whitney U and the Adjusted Standardized Residuals statistical tests. Likewise, the strength of association of the variables under study was calculated using Cramer’s Phi and Cramer’s V coefficients. Both intervention programmes had the same number of tasks (n = 29), sessions (n = 12), game phases (x2 = 0.000; p = 1.000), specific contents (x2 = 5.311; p = 0.968) and didactic objectives, as well as different levels of eTL (U = 145.000; p = 0.000; d = 1.357); which are necessary requirements to be considered similar. The differences and/or similarities between both intervention programmes will offer teachers guidelines to develop different didactic units using the specific DI and TGA methodologies.

1. Introduction

The teaching–learning process from when an individual begins their sports learning until they are able to put into practice, with a certain amount of effectiveness, what they have learned in an actual game situation, is called sports initiation [1].
Sports initiation can be approached both in the curricular and extracurricular context. Independently of the context in which it takes place, this teaching should be centred on an educational and formative framework [2]. Delgado [3] states that schools are the places where educational and formative sport can be guaranteed, and that it must fulfil a series of characteristics to be considered as such: it must be participative, coeducational, creative, play-oriented, take account of diversity, and promote value education. In this regard, Castejón [4] points to three proposals that every physical education teacher should bear in mind so that the sports teaching has an educational sense: a) a greater incidence on the ambits of cognitive, affective-social and motor knowledge; b) involvement of the students in the design and implementation of the tasks, taking their interests and needs into account; and c) improvement of the evaluation processes, moving towards an educational evaluation.
Sport is part of the curricular content in the area of physical education and, like the rest of curricular contents, requires planning and design using didactic units [5]. Del Valle et al. [6], define didactic units as instruments which facilitate the educational task, permitting the teacher to organise the teaching–learning processes adapted to the group of students. For the correct design, a series of aspects has to be taken into account: the characteristics of the students; an analysis of the context, timing, objectives, contents, methodology, organisation, didactic materials, transversality, curricular adaptation; results and evaluation of the process [7]. These aspects, developed in the didactic units, are put into practice later in the classroom sessions. The classroom session is the minimum unit of programming, based on the didactic unit, so that all together with the rest of the sessions it makes sense for the students’ learning [8].
Invasion sports, among which we find soccer, are those that appear most commonly in teachers’ programmes [9]. The teachers and coaches are those mainly responsible for planning, developing and monitoring sports teaching [10,11]. In this regard, one of the functions of the teacher when planning sports teaching, is to select the method going to be used so that the students acquire the learning contents as efficiently as possible. Two sport teaching approaches stand out: those centred on the teacher (TCA) and those centred on the student (SCA) [12].
Among the TCA, the Direct Instruction (DI) method is the most common. This method is based on the principle of technical competence, a prior requisite before the incorporation of the rules and the game [13]. In addition, the sports teaching is developed in isolated circumstances which are decontextualised from the actual game [14], where the students spend most of the time inactive and with few opportunities for empowerment and creativity [15,16]. The teacher plans, explains and demonstrates the tasks that the students have to perform, and they listen and act according to the determined guidelines; thus, the teacher becomes the protagonist of the teaching–learning process [17,18].
In contrast, the Tactical Games Approach (TGA) stands out among the SCA. In the TGA, an initial form of the game is presented, incorporating tactical problems using small-sided games (SSG) and/or modifying the rules. The practice of technical abilities is introduced later when it is necessary [19,20]. The teacher asks questions of the students during the sports practice so that they resolve the tactical problems set [18,21]. SSG have become a very popular method for all ages and/or levels [22], as they involve the actual movement patterns used in soccer [23] and they are beneficial for the young students in their sports development [24]. The literature presents a great many investigations that study the effects of the SSG formats on physiological, kinematic and technical parameters [25,26,27].
For Rovegno et al. [28], the concepts of technical and tactical ability should not be separated. Although different authors have studied methodologies in sports teaching [29,30,31], few programmes can be found in the literature that have been designed [5], and validated [32] to confirm the efficiency of the different pedagogical methodologies in the teaching of invasion sports in the educational context. In particular, this type of study is unknown in the area of soccer as an invasion sport. The different studies mention the effects provoked by applying intervention programmes according to different specific methodologies [21,33,34]. However, these studies do not mention the planning of such programmes.
Thus, the present study aims to design and analyse the differences and/or similarities of two homogeneous intervention programmes corresponding to two didactic units, Direct Instruction in Soccer (DIS) and Tactical Games Approach to Soccer (TGAS) for teaching soccer in the school context.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

This is an instrumental study within the framework of an associative comparative strategy [35], aimed at the design and analysis of two intervention programmes for teaching school-age soccer.

2.2. Sample

The study sample was composed of a total of 58 tasks included in two intervention programmes based on two different teaching methods, of which 29 corresponded to the DIS programme and the remaining 29 to the TGAS programme.
After the programmes had been designed and validated, they were administered to two groups of students from the 5th year of primary education, DIS (n = 21) and TGAS (n = 20), aged 10 and 11, respectively. The programmes were randomly distributed to the groups. Forty-three percent of the students who participated in the DIS intervention programme and 15% who participated in the TGAS programme practised soccer as an extracurricular activity. All students and teacher were informed about the research protocol, requisites, and benefits, and their written consent was obtained before start of the study. The ethics committee of the University of Extremadura approved the study (nº 09/2018).

2.3. Variables

The study variables can be divided into two groups depending on their nature: pedagogical variables and external Training Load (eTL) variables. These variables were recorded in the Integral System for the Analysis of Training Tasks (SIATE by its Spanish acronym) [36].
The pedagogical variables make it possible for the teacher to understand the characteristics of the tasks and facilitate their organisation/structuring. The variables used were: game situation (GS), presence of goalkeeper (POG), game phase (GP), type of content (CONT-G), specific content (CONT-S), teaching means (TM) and level of the opposition (LO) [36]. Each pedagogical variable was structured as a categorical/nominal system of different levels.
The eTL variables used were: degree of opposition (DO), density of the task (DT) percentage of simultaneous performers (PSP), competitive load (CL), game space (GS) and cognitive implication (CI) [36]. Each eTL variable was structured as a categorical/ordinal system with a five-level definition.
The eTL variables make it possible for the teacher to subjectively quantify the load produced by the tasks obtaining a secondary variable: the eTL task load (quantification of eTL). The value of this variable varies between 6 and 30, with four ranges to categorise it: 6–12 (very low), 13–18 (somewhat low), 19–24 (somewhat high) and 25–30 (very high). Similarly, to obtain a more accurate figure for the real load of the task, the eTL was multiplied by the motor time (organisational variable) of the sports activity measured in seconds (eTL × Time) [36].
Table 1 describes the pedagogical and eTL variables recorded in the SIATE [36].

2.4. Instruments

The tasks were recorded using the SIATE [36]. This system makes it possible to record and analyse the different parameters that intervene in the process of teaching invasion sports.
The data recorded with the SIATE were then exported to the statistical programme SPSS 21.0 (SPSS. Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), for the descriptive and inferential analysis of the pedagogical and eTL variables present in each intervention programme: DIS and TGAS.

2.5. Procedure

This study was divided into two phases: i) The design of the tasks and the drafting of the DIS and TGAS intervention programmes; and ii) A descriptive and inferential analysis to reveal the differences and/or similarities between both intervention programmes.
A series of chronologically ordered actions was used to draft the intervention programmes. First, a literature search was conducted on the DI and TGA methods. Then, the specific contents and didactic objectives to be worked on were established for each of the sessions. These were selected following the proposal by González-Víllora et al. [37]. Then, depending on the methodology, the programme tasks were designed bearing in mind the following elements: number of the task, time, graph, organisation and materials, description of the task, game phase, attacking and/or defensive purpose, teaching means, specific content, game situation and feedback.
Once designed, the tasks were distributed into 12 practical sessions. The sessions did not have the classical structure of a physical education class (warm-up, main part and cool down) [38]. Each session was composed of 4 tasks lasting 10 minutes each, and they were structured progressively, from the simplest (warm-up) to the most complex (culminating activities) [39].
Table 2 shows the distribution of the tasks composing the DIS and TGAS programmes in the 12 practical sessions.
The DIS and TGAS intervention programmes were drawn up with similar structures; thus, they had to have the same number of tasks, sessions, game phases, specific contents and didactic objectives (see Appendix A).
Once the intervention programmes were designed, they were sent to a panel of 13 experts with a recognised trajectory in the study topic to evaluate the suitability of the method and the drafting of the tasks in each programme. Both programmes obtained excellent levels of validity and reliability. Content validity was calculated with Aiken’s V coefficient and its confidence intervals [40], obtaining an exact critical value of 0.69 at a 95% confidence level for the acceptance of the tasks. None of the tasks that made up either intervention programme were eliminated as they all passed the exact established critical value. Cronbach’s α coefficient [41], was used to confirm the reliability of the tasks, obtaining a value of 0.97.
After incorporating the improvements suggested by the experts, a descriptive analysis was performed. Finally, the differences and/or similarities between the two intervention programmes were identified using an analysis of their pedagogical and eTL variables.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The characteristics of the data led to the use of non-parametric mathematical models to test the hypothesis. Firstly, a descriptive analysis was performed to obtain the frequency and the percentage of the categories of each pedagogical and eTL variable present in the DIS and TGAS intervention programmes.
Following this line of analysis, the Adjusted Standardized Residuals (ASR) from the contingency tables [42] were analysed to find the differences between the categories of each pedagogical and eTL variable. The ASR, with a confidence level of 95%, showed the range (ASR > |1.96|) of the categories of each variable differentiating one intervention programme from the other. The categories with residues of > 1.96 indicate that that there are more cases than expected, while those with residues of < −1.96 indicate that there are less cases than expected [43].
Once the descriptive analysis was performed and the ASR studied, an inferential analysis of the different pedagogical and eTL variables was performed to compare both intervention programmes. For this, different statistical tests were used depending on the nature of the variables whether nominal or ordinal [44]. The Chi-Square test (x2) was applied to the pedagogical variables (nominal) while the Mann-Whitney U test was used for the eTL variables (ordinal), for which effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d, according to the following ranges established by Cohen [45]: < 0.000 (adverse), 0.000–0.199 (no effect), 0.200–0.499 (small), 0.500–0.799 (medium) and 0.800– ≥ 1.000 (large).
Lastly, the strength of association was calculated between the study variables. Cramer’s Phi (Φc) and Cramer’s V (Vc) were used for the pedagogical variables (nominal × nominal). Cramer’s V (Vc) was also used for the eTL variables (nominal × ordinal) [46]. According to Crewson [47], the strength of association between the variables will depend on the value obtained: <0.100 (small), 0.100–0.299 (low), 0.300–0.499 (moderate) and ≥0.500 (high).

3. Results

Table 3 presents the descriptive results and the ASR of the categories of each variable in both intervention programmes.
Figure 1 shows the time in minutes devoted to each of the game phases in both intervention programmes. It can be seen how in spite of the predominance of the attacking phase, there is a balance among the attacking, defensive and mixed phases. This process will offer the students balanced and complete training [48].
The descriptive results and ASR of the categories of each eTL variable in both intervention programmes are presented in Table 4.
The mean quantification in eTL and eTL × Time of the tasks for each intervention programme is shown in Table 5.
Table 6 presents the differences and/or similarities between both intervention programmes using the Chi-Square statistical test for the pedagogical variables.
Lastly, the differences and/or similarities between both intervention programmes using the Mann-Whitney U test for the eTL variables are shown in Table 7.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to design and analyse the differences and/or similarities between two homogeneous intervention programmes (didactic units): DIS and TGAS, based on two different teaching methods: DI and TGA respectively. The two intervention programmes are valid and reliable for teaching soccer in the school context, as well as for comparing the efficiency of the two teaching methodologies in the learning of soccer in primary education. The results show significant differences in some of the pedagogical and eTL variables between the two intervention programmes, due to the particularity of each methodology. The main advantages of the TGA over DI can be found in the greater participation and motivation of the students during the physical education classes and the fact that they acquire a greater understanding and retention of the learning due to the use of games.
The pedagogical organisation of the tasks influences the selected teaching method. Currently, no studies have been found that have discriminated in which parameters one or other of the methodologies is located. The results of this study show significant differences (p < 0.05) in the following variables: game situation, type of contents, teaching means and level of opposition between the two intervention programmes. The DIS intervention programme seeks the achievement of technical moves using analytical tasks, incorporating the global tasks at the end of the teaching process [12,49,50]. In contrast, the TGAS intervention programme aims at the resolution of tactical problems using play tasks or situations from the real competitive game where the students have to make decisions [19,51,52]. The results obtained coincide with those of the study aimed at designing two homogeneous intervention programmes, Direct Instruction in Basketball (DIB) and Tactical Game in Basketball (TGB), for teaching basketball in primary education [5]. However, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between both programmes in the following variables: game phase and specific content. These results show that the design of the tasks for each programme was similar, although based on different methodologies. González-Víllora et al. [53], indicate that the students learn the elements of attack before those of defence. Thus, the two intervention programmes gave priority to the attack phase over the defence phase. Similarly, there is a balance between the phases of attack, defence and mixed fomenting balanced and complete training for the students [48]. Different programmes drawn up for teaching soccer from a vertical perspective also give priority to learning attack over defence [54].
Regarding the eTL variables, the results show significant differences between the DIS and TGAS programmes in the following variables: degree of opposition, density of the task, competitive load and cognitive implication. These variables show that the quantification of eTL is higher in the TGAS (M = 20.21; moderately high) and lower in the DIS intervention programmes (M = 14.34; moderately low), coinciding with the results obtained by Chen et al. [55], who indicate that sports practice in constructivist methodologies provokes higher levels of intensity. The quantification of eTL can be affected by the modification of the structural and formal parameters of the tasks: the rules of the game, the dimensions of the space, the number of players involved, the goal count, the duration of the task etc. [22,56]. Different authors have focused on studying the dimensions of the space [57,58] and the number of players involved [59,60]. In such a way that smaller spaces and fewer players provoke higher levels of eTL as a consequence of the greater contact among the players and with the ball [61]. These types of tasks are called small-sided games, SSG [62], and they are especially suitable for sports development in the young [24]. The results obtained show significant differences in eTL and eTL*Time between both intervention programmes. These results coincide with a study to design homogeneous intervention programmes DIB and TGB, for teaching basketball in primary education [5], or for contrasting the load between training and actual competition in a women’s basketball team in the sphere of sports training [63]. However, no differences existed in the percentage of simultaneous participants and play space variables.
The choice of one programme or another for teaching soccer depends on the knowledge and methodological approach of the teacher [64]. However, the TGAS intervention programme appears to be the most favourable programme due to the fact that this methodology offers a wide range of motor experiences, as well as developing different abilities, capacities, skills and competences suitable for the psychoevolutionary characteristics of the students [65]. Similarly, Chatzipanteli et al. [66] state that the TGA could improve the metacognitive behaviour of the students in physical education classes in primary education. This method works on technical, tactical and physical aspects using play, SSG, thus obtaining a better retention of learning [67]. In contrast, in the DI method, the students acquire little understanding of the game during the physical education lessons, and as a result their decision making abilities are deficient [68]. Furthermore, the DI method makes it difficult to keep up the motivation and performance of the students during long periods of time, as the situations proposed are not very stimulating because they do not possess the essential aspects of the game. [69,70]. The participation and motivation of the students in physical education is greater with the TGA because of the fun and enjoyment of the game [71]. The use of TGA by the teachers can also help the students to attain adequate levels of physical activity for health in the physical education classes; however, the prevalence of the DI method in this subject is the cause of students’ high levels of inactivity [15,72,73]. Thus, different authors propose the TGA for school physical education, and they are used in isolated cases especially by teachers who show a preference for these methods [51,74]. The TGA are used to a lesser extent due to the difficulty in implementing them because of their emphasis on understanding the game [19,75] and the lack of information [4].
Lastly, it is important to indicate the very small number of intervention programmes designed according to a specific teaching–learning method [5], and validated by a panel of experts [32] for teaching invasion sports in the school context. Specifically, this type of study is unknown in the sport of soccer. The different studies found in the literature point to the effects produced by the application of intervention programmes using specific methodologies [21,33,34], but do not mention how such programmes were designed and validated. The results obtained in the validation of the DIS and TGAS intervention programmes show excellent internal consistency and reliability, which makes them recommendable for use in the school context and in the context of sports training. For this reason, this study has the strong point of offering teachers, coaches and researchers, guidelines that can serve as a reference for drawing up programmes (didactic units) according to the specific methodologies of DI and TGA. One limitation to consider is the duration of the intervention programmes, 10–12 sessions, which depends on the duration of the didactic units in the education system. Thus, these intervention programmes have shorter duration than extracurricular sport intervention programmes. Before implementing the intervention programmes, it is necessary to adapt them to the level of the students because they are constantly exposed to soccer. Playing soccer in the extracurricular context can influence the level of learning achieved after the intervention programmes.

5. Conclusions

The DIS and TGAS intervention programmes can be used by physical education teachers for teaching soccer in schools. The choice of one programme or another will depend on the knowledge, methodological approach and life experience of the teacher.
The study of the differences and/or similarities of both intervention programmes will offer the teachers guidelines for drawing up programmes (didactic units) according to the specific methodologies of DI and TGA. In this regard, TGA is more favourable than DI due to the use of games, SSG, which provokes greater participation and motivation on the part of the students during the physical education classes, as well as a better understanding and retention of the learned contents.
These programmes will also make it possible for researchers to analyse the level of learning acquired by the students after their application, as well as contrasting the effects of the different teaching methodologies in the learning of school soccer.

Author Contributions

J.M.G.-C. designed and conducted the study. J.M.G.-C. analysed the data and performed the statistical analysis. S.F. and S.J.I. had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Funding

This project has been partially subsidised by the Aid for Research Groups (GR18170) from the regional government of Extremadura (Department of Employment, Companies and Innovation) with a contribution from the European Union from the European Funds for Regional Development.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Structure of the DIS and TGAS intervention programmes.
Table A1. Structure of the DIS and TGAS intervention programmes.
DIS
S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12
FeedbackDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/PrescriptiveDescriptive/Prescriptive
PresentationAnalytical Analytical Analytical AnalyticalAnalyticalAnalyticalAnalyticalAnalyticalAnalytical -GlobalAnalytical -GlobalGlobalGlobal
SpaceStatic activ. SmallSmall Medium LargeStatic activ. Medium SmallSmall MediumStatic activ. SmallSmall MediumSmallSmall Small Small Small MediumSmall Medium
Situation2 × 0, 3 × 01 × 01 × 0, 2 × 0, 3 × 01 × 01 × 0, 1 × 1, 1 × Large Group1 × 01 × 0, 2 × 01 × 0, 1 × 11 × 1, 2 × 11 × 0, 1 × 1, 2 × 11 × 1, 2 × 1, 2 × 2, N × N1 × 1, 2 × 1, 2 × 2, 5 × 5
MeansSimple practical exerciseSimple practical exercise
Complex practical exercise
Simple practical exercise
Complex practical exercise
Simple practical exercise
Complex practical exercise
Simple practical exercise
Simple specific game
Simple practical exercise
Complex practical exercise
Simple practical exercise
Complex practical exercise
Simple practical exercise
Simple specific game
Simple specific game Simple practical exercise
Simple specific game
Simple non-specific game
Simple specific game
Simple specific game
Adapted sport/SSG.
Game principlesProtect ProgressProtect ProgressProgressProgressProgress
Reach goal
Progress
Reach goal
Progress
Reach goal
Recover Recover Hinder progressRecover Hinder progressReach goal
Protect goal
Reach goal
Protect goal
Specific contentPass-controlBall control: progression and protectionProgression with support of team matesDribbling on the runProgression to goal to shootDribbling past opponent to try to shootReview of attack contentsInterception: passes between opponentsInterception: passes between opponents/shot /entryReview of defence contentsSituations played: attack and defenceSituations played: attack and defence
Phase AttackAttackAttackAttackAttackAttackAttackAttackDefenceDefenceMixedMixed
TGAS
S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12
Phase AttackAttackAttackAttackAttackAttackAttackDefenceDefenceDefenceMixedMixed
Specific contentPass-controlBall control: progression and protection Progression with support of team matesDribbling on the runProgression to goal to shootDribbling past opponent to try to shootReview of attack contentsInterception: passes between opponentsInterception: passes between opponents shot/entryReview of defence contentsSituations played: attack and defenceSituations played: attack and defence
Game principles Protect Progress Protect ProgressProgress ProgressProgress
Reach goal
Progress
Reach goal
Progress
Reach goal
Recover Recover Hinder progress Recover Hinder progressReach goal
Protect goal
Reach goal
Protect goal
MeansComplex specific game Simple non-specific game
Simple specific game
Simple specific game
Complex specific game
Simple non-specific game
Simple specific game
Simple specific game Simple specific game Simple specific game
Complex specific game
Simple specific game
Complex specific game
Simple specific game
Complex specific game
Simple specific game
Complex specific game
Simple specific game
Complex specific game Adapted sport/SSG.
Simple specific game
Complex specific game Adapted sport/SSG.
Situation5 × 1, 5 × 41 × 1, 1 × Large Group1 × GG, 5 × 4, N × N, Combin.1 × 11 × 11 × 12 × 1, 3 × 2, 5 × 42 × 1, 3 × 1, 3 × 2, 4 × 21 × 1, 3 × 2, 4 × 2 1 × 1, 3 × 1, 3 × 22 × 1, 2 × 2, 3 × 2, 4 × 42 × 2, 3 × 2, 4 × 4, 5 × 5
SpaceStatic activ. MediumMediumMedium LargeSmall MediumSmall MediumSmall MediumSmall MediumSmallSmallSmallSmallMediumSmallMedium
PresentationGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobalGlobal
FeedbackInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogativeInterrogative

References

  1. Hernández, J. Análisis de las estructuras del juego deportivo; Inde: Barcelona, Spain, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  2. González-Víllora, S.; García, L.M.; Contreras, O.R.; Sánchez-Mora, D. El concepto de iniciación deportiva en la actualidad. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación 2009, 15, 14–20. [Google Scholar]
  3. Delgado, M.A. El papel del entrenador en el deporte durante la edad escolar. Deporte y actividad física para todos 2001, 2, 63–78. [Google Scholar]
  4. Castejón, F.J. La investigación en iniciación deportiva válida para el profesorado de educación física en ejercicio. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación 2015, 28, 263–269. [Google Scholar]
  5. González-Espinosa, S.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Feu, S. Diseño de dos programas de enseñanza del baloncesto basados en métodos de enseñanza-aprendizaje diferentes. E-balonmano.com: Revista de Ciencias del Deporte 2017, 13, 131–152. [Google Scholar]
  6. Del Valle, S.; García, M.J. Cómo programar en Educación Física paso a paso; Inde: Barcelona, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fernández, E.; Cecchini, J.A.; Zagalaz, M.L. Didáctica de la educación física en la educación primaria; Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  8. Viciana, J. Planificar en Educación Física (1ª ed.); Inde: Barcelona, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ureña, N.; Alarcón, F.; Ureña, F. La realidad de los deportes colectivos en la Enseñanza Secundaria. Cómo planifican e intervienen los profesores de Murcia. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación 2009, 16, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ibáñez, S.J. La planificación y el control del entrenamiento técnico-táctico en baloncesto. In Fisiología, entrenamiento y medicina del baloncesto; Terrados, N., Calleja, J., Eds.; Paidotribo: Barcelona, Spain, 2008; pp. 299–313. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ibáñez, S.J. La intervención del entrenador de baloncesto: Investigación e implicaciones prácticas. In Aportaciones teóricas y prácticas para el baloncesto del futuro; Lorenzo, A., Ibáñez, S.J., Ortega, E., Eds.; Wanceulen: Sevilla, Spain, 2009; pp. 11–30. [Google Scholar]
  12. Alarcón, F.; Cárdenas, D.; Miranda, M.T.; Ureña, N.; Piñar, M.I. La metodología de enseñanza en los deportes de equipo. Revista de Investigación en Educación 2010, 7, 91–103. [Google Scholar]
  13. Oslin, J.; Mitchell, S. Game-centered approaches to teaching physical education. In Handbook of Physical Education; Kirk, D., MacDonald, D., O’Sullivan, M., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2006; pp. 627–651. [Google Scholar]
  14. Light, R.L.; Harvey, S.; Mouchet, A. Improving ‘at-action’ decision-making in team sports through a holistic coaching approach. Sport Educ. Soc. 2014, 19, 258–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Roberts, S.; Fairclough, S. Observational analysis of student activity modes, lesson contexts and teacher interactions during games classes in high school (11–16 years) physical education. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2011, 17, 255–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Butler, J.I.; McCahan, B.J. Teaching games for understanding as a curriculum model. In Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice; Butler, J.I., Griffin, L.L., Eds.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2005; pp. 33–55. [Google Scholar]
  17. Baena, A. Bases teóricas y didácticas de la EF escolar; Gioconda: Granada, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  18. Light, R.L.; Kentel, J.A. Soft pedagogy. In Boys’ Bodies; Kehlen, M., Atkinson, M., Eds.; Peter Lang Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 133–152. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mitchell, S.A.; Oslin, J.L.; Griffin, L.L. Teaching Sport Concepts and Skill—A Tactical Games Approach; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  20. Memmert, D.; Harvey, S. Identification of non-specific tactical tasks in invasion games. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2010, 15, 287–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smith, L.; Harvey, S.; Savory, L.; Fairclough, S.; Kozub, S.; Kerr, C. Physical activity levels and motivational responses of boys and girls: A comparison of direct instruction and tactical games models of games teaching in physical education. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2014, 21, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hill-Haas, S.V.; Dawson, B.; Impellizzeri, F.M.; Coutts, A.J. Physiology of Small-Sided Games Training in Football: A Systematic Review. Sports Med. 2011, 41, 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Koklu, Y.; Ersoz, G.; Alemdaroglu, U.; Asci, A.; Ozkan, A. Physiological responses and time-motion characteristics of 4-a-side small-sided game in young soccer players: The influence of different team formation methods. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2012, 26, 3118–3123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Casamichana, D.; San Román, J.; Calleja, J.; Castellano, J. Los juegos reducidos en el entrenamiento del fútbol; Fútbol de libro. Colección Fútbol Profesional: Barcelona, España, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. Clemente, F.M. Associations between wellness and internal and external load variables in two intermittent small-sided soccer games. Physiol. Behav. 2018, 197, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gómez-Carmona, C.D.; Gamonales, J.M.; Pino-Ortega, J.; Ibáñez, S.J. Comparative Analysis of Load Profile between Small-Sided Games and Official Matches in Youth Soccer Players. Sports 2018, 6, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rojas-Inda, S. Análisis de carga interna y externa de futbolistas jóvenes en juegos reducidos/Analysis of Internal and External Load in Small Games in Young Football Players. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Física y del Deporte 2018, 18, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rovegno, I.; Nevett, M.; Brock, S.; Babiarz, M. Teaching and learning basic invasion-game tactics in 4th grade: A descriptive study from situated and constraints theoretical perspectives. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2001, 20, 370–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Allison, S.; Thorpe, R. A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus games for understanding approach. Br. J. Phys. Educ. 1997, 28, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  30. García, J.A.; Ruiz, L.M. Análisis comparativo de dos modelos de intervención en el aprendizaje del balonmano. Revista de Psicología del Deporte 2003, 12, 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mesquita, I.; Farias, C.; Hastie, P. The impact of a hybrid Sport Education-Invasion Games Competence Model soccer unit on students’ decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2012, 18, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. González-Espinosa, S.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Feu, S.; Galatti, L.R. Programas de intervención para la enseñanza deportiva en el contexto escolar, PETB y PEAB: Estudio preliminar. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación 2017, 31, 107–113. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chatzopoulos, D.; Tsormbatzoudis, H.; Drakou, A. Combinations of technique and games approaches: Effects on game performance and motivation. J. Hum. Mov. Stud. 2006, 50, 157–170. [Google Scholar]
  34. Práxedes, A.; García-González, L.; Cortés, A.M.; Arroyo, M.P.M.; Domínguez, A.M. Application of an intervention program to improve tactical understanding in indoor football: A study conducted in an educational context. Movimento 2016, 22, 51–62. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ato, M.; López, J.J.; Benavente, A. Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología 2013, 29, 1038–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ibáñez, S.J.; Feu, S.; Cañadas, M. Sistema integral para el análisis de las tareas de entrenamiento, SIATE, en deportes de invasión. E-balonmano.com: Revista de Ciencias del Deporte 2016, 12, 3–30. [Google Scholar]
  37. González-Víllora, S.; Gutiérrez, D.; Pastor-Vicedo, J.C.; Fernández, J.G. Análisis funcional de los deportes de invasión: Importancia del subsistema técnico-táctico en el juego. Concreción en el fútbol. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación 2007, 12, 18–28. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sáenz-López, P. La Educación Física y su Didáctica. Manual para el profesor; Wanceulen: Sevilla, Spain, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ibáñez, S.J. Planificación de una temporada en la iniciación al baloncesto. In Táctica y técnica en la iniciación al baloncesto; Ortega, G., Jiménez, A.C., Eds.; Wanceulen: Sevilla, Spain, 2009; pp. 69–99. [Google Scholar]
  40. Aiken, L.R. Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1985, 45, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cronbach, L.J. Essentials of Psychological Testing, 5th ed.; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  42. Williams, C.; Wragg, C. Data Analysis and Research for Sport and Exercise Science. A Student Guide; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  43. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS; Sage publications: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Cubo, S.; Martín, B.; Ramos, J.L. Métodos de investigación y análisis de datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud; Pirámide: Madrid, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2a ed.); Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pardo, A.; Ruiz, M.A. Análisis de datos con SPSS 13 Base; McGraw Hill: Madrid, Spain, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  47. Crewson, P. Applied Statistics Handbook. Version 1.2; AcaStat Software: Leesburg, VA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  48. Cañadas, M.; Ibáñez, S.J.; García, J.; Parejo, I.; Feu, S. Estudio de las fases de juego a través del análisis del entrenamiento deportivo en categoría minibasket. Cuadernos de Psicología del Deporte 2012, 12, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Abad, M.T.; Benito, P.J.; Giménez, F.J.; Robles, J. Fundamentos pedagógicos de la enseñanza comprensiva del deporte: Una revisión de la literatura. Cultura, Ciencia y Deporte 2013, 23, 137–146. [Google Scholar]
  50. Metzler, M.W. Instructional Models for Physical Education; Holocomb Hathaway: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  51. Miller, A. Games Centered Approaches in Teaching Children & Adolescents: Systematic Review of Associated Student Outcomes. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2015, 34, 36–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pérez-Muñoz, J.; Yagüe, S.; Sánchez-Sánchez, J.M. El proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje de los deportes colectivos; Wanceulen: Sevilla, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  53. González-Víllora, S.; García-López, L.M.; Contreras-Jordán, O.R. Evolución de la toma de decisiones y la habilidad técnica en fútbol/Decision making and skill development in youth football players. Revista Internacional de Medicina y Ciencias de la Actividad Fisica y del Deporte 2015, 15, 467–487. [Google Scholar]
  54. González-Víllora, S. Revisión sobre la formación específica en fútbol: Programaciones de enseñanza-aprendizaje desde la perspectiva vertical. Train. Fútbol 2009, 156, 26–46. [Google Scholar]
  55. Chen, A.; Martin, R.; Sun, H.C.; Ennis, C.D. Is in-class physical activity at risk in constructivist physical education? Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2007, 78, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Aguilar, M.; Botelho, G.; Lago, C.; Maçãs, V.; Sampaio, J. A Review on the Effects of Soccer Small-Sided Games. J. Hum. Kinet. 2012, 33, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Casamichana, D.; Castellano, J. Time-motion, heart rate, perceptual and motor behaviour demands in small-sides soccer games: Effects of pitch size. J. Sports Sci. 2010, 28, 1615–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kelly, D.A.; Drust, B. The effect of pitch dimensions on heart rate responses and technical demands of small-sided soccer games in elite players. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2009, 12, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Owen, A.L.; Wong, D.P.; Paul, D.; Dellal, A. Physical and Technical Comparisons between Various-Sided Games within Professional Soccer. Int. J. Sports Med. 2014, 35, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Rampinini, E.; Impellizzeri, F.M.; Castagna, C.; Abt, G.; Chamari, K.; Sassi, A.; Marcora, S.M. Factors influencing physiological responses to small-sided soccer games. J. Sports Sci. 2007, 25, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rábano Muñoz, A.; Torres-Pacheco, M.; Asián-Clemente, J.A. Carga externa e interna de tres formatos de juegos reducidos basados en la periodización táctica. Revista de Preparación Física en el Fútbol 2017, 23, 40–50. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gracia, F.; García, J.; Cañadas, M.; Ibáñez, S.J. Heart rate differences in small sided games in formative basketball. E-balonmano.com: J. Sport Sci. 2014, 10, 23–30. [Google Scholar]
  63. Reina, M.; Mancha, D.; Feu, S.; Ibáñez, S.J. ¿Se entrena cómo se compite? Análisis de la carga en baloncesto femenino. Revista de Psicología del Deporte 2017, 26, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lima, C.O.; Matías, C.J.; Greco, P.J. O conhecimento tático produto de métodos de ensino combinados e aplicados em sequências inversas no voleibol. Revista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte 2012, 26, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Serra, J.; García-López, L.M.; Sánchez-Mora, D. El juego modificado, recurso metodológico en el fútbol de iniciación. Retos: Nuevas Tendencias en Educación Física, Deporte y Recreación 2011, 20, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
  66. Chatzipanteli, A.; Digelidis, N.; Karatzoglidis, C.; Dean, R. A tactical-game approach and enhancement of metacognitive behaviour in elementary school students. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2014, 21, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sans, A.; Frattarola, C. Manual para la organización y el entrenamiento en las escuelas de fútbol; Paidotribo: Barcelona, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  68. Stolz, S.; Pill, S. Teaching games and sport for understanding: Exploring and reconsidering its relevance in physical education. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2014, 20, 36–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pacheco, R. La enseñanza y entrenamiento del fútbol 7. Un juego de iniciación al fútbol 11; Paidotribo: Barcelona, Spain, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  70. Jones, R.J.A.; Marshall, S.; Peters, D.M. Can we play a game now? The intrinsic value of TGfU. Eur. J. Phys. Health Educ. 2010, 4, 57–63. [Google Scholar]
  71. Armstrong, N.; Welsman, J.R. The physical activity patterns of European youth with reference to methods of assessment. Sports Med. 2006, 36, 1067–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Harvey, S.; Song, Y.; Baek, J.-H.; van der Mars, H. Two sides of the same coin: Student physical activity levels during a game-centred soccer unit. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2016, 22, 411–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Miller, A.; Christensen, E.; Eather, N.; Gray, S.; Sproule, J.; Keay, J.; Lubans, D. Can physical education and physical activity outcomes be developed simultaneously using a game-centered approach? Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2016, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Harvey, S.; Pill, S. Comparisons of Academic Researchers’ and Physical Education Teachers’ Perspectives on the Utilization of the Tactical Games Model. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2016, 35, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Harvey, S.; Pill, S. Comparison of Researchers and Physical Education Teachers’ Perspectives on the Utilization of the Tactical Games Model. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2016, 87, S88–S89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Time devoted to each game phase in both intervention programmes.
Figure 1. Time devoted to each game phase in both intervention programmes.
Sports 07 00074 g001
Table 1. Synthesis of the pedagogical and eTL variables.
Table 1. Synthesis of the pedagogical and eTL variables.
Pedagogical Variables Description
GSGroups of players that the teachers and coaches design for each of the tasks (e.g. 2 × 1; 2 being the number of attackers and 1 the number of defenders).
POGPresence of goalkeeper in the task.
GPGame phase on which the task objective is mainly focused.
CONT-GThe contents (attack and defence) are grouped in individual, group and team contents, as well as tactical behaviours and technical moves.
CONT-SSpecific contents for each sports discipline.
TMSports motor activities that serve to develop technical and tactical contents.
LOLevel of opposition in the task design.
eTL VariablesDescription
DODegree of opposition based on the number of opponents in the task.
DTIndicates subjectively the intensity with which the task is developed.
PSPIndicates the level of participation of the players during the task.
CLRefers to the emotional and psychological load that the players bear when they have to carry out a task under pressure to achieve a result.
GSThe space in which the players have to carry out the proposed tasks.
CIRefers to the tactical load, i.e. the attention that the player has to give to team mates and opponents.
eTL task loadObtained by adding the value assigned to each of the six eTL variables (1 to 5 points).
GO + DT + PES + CC + EJ + IC=quantification of eTL.
eTL × TimeCalculated by multiplying eTL by the useful time that the players have been practising measured in seconds.
Note: GS = Game situation; POG = Presence of goalkeeper; GP = Game phase; CONT-G = Type of contents; CONT-S = Specific content; TM = Teaching means; LO = Level of opposition.
Table 2. Distribution of the tasks composing the DIS and TGAS programmes.
Table 2. Distribution of the tasks composing the DIS and TGAS programmes.
DIS
S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12
DI10DI8DI10DI12DI15DI16DI19DI24DI26DI26DI28DI29
DI3DI7DI9DI11DI14DI15DI18DI23DI25DI25DI27DI28
DI2DI6DI8DI8DI13DI12DI17DI22DI24DI23DI20DI27
DI1DI5DI2DI5DI5DI11DI16DI21DI21DI22DI4DI20
TGAS
S1S2S3S4S5S6S7S8S9S10S11S12
TG1TG5TG2TG6TG6TG11TG4TG21TG23TG22TG19TG20
TG2TG6TG8TG7TG13TG12TG17TG22TG24TG23TG20TG27
TG3TG7TG9TG11TG14TG13TG18TG23TG25TG25TG27TG28
TG4TG8TG10TG12TG15TG16TG19TG24TG26TG26TG28TG29
Table 3. Differences and/or similarities between the pedagogical variables of the DIS and TGAS programmes.
Table 3. Differences and/or similarities between the pedagogical variables of the DIS and TGAS programmes.
VariableCategoryDISTGAS
n%ASRn%ASR
GS0 vs. 113.41.0 00−1.0
1 vs. 0827.63.0*00−3.0*
1 vs. 1620.7−1.2 1034.51.2
2 vs. 0724.12.8*00−2.8*
2 vs. 126.9−0.5 310.30.5
2 vs. 213.40.0 13.40.0
3 vs. 013.41.0 00−1.0
3 vs. 100−1.0 13.41.0
3 vs. 200−1.8 310.31.8
4 vs. 200−1.0 13.41.0
4 vs. 400−1.0 13.41.0
5 vs. 100−1.0 13.41.0
5 vs. 400−1.8 310.31.8
5 vs. 513.40.0 13.40.0
N vs. N13.40.0 13.40.0
1 vs. Large group13.4−0.6 26.90.6
Combined situation00−1.0 13.41.0
POGWith goalkeeper13.41.0 00−1.0
Without goalkeeper2896.6−1.0 291001.0
GPAttack1965.50.0 1965.50.0
Defence620.70.0 620.70.0
Mixed413.80.0 413.80.0
CONT-GAITTB13.4−3.2*1137.93.2*
DITTB00−2.1*413.82.1*
AITTM1034.53.5*00−3.5*
DITTM620.72.6*00−2.6*
AGTTB310.3−1.4 724.11.4
DGTTB00−1.4 26.91.4
AGTTM827.63.0*00−3.0*
ATTTB13.4−1.7 517.21.7
CONT-G 2 1CTTID26.91.6 00−1.6
CTTGD13.4−1.4 310.31.4
CTTED13.40.0 13.40.0
CONT-SPass-control517.20.4 413.8−0.4
Ball control: progression26.9−0.5 310.30.5
Ball control: protection26.90.0 26.90.0
Progression with support13.40.0 13.40.0
Shot at goal26.91.4 00−1.4
Progression to shoot at goal13.4−1.0 310.31.0
Progression through passes to score at goal310.30.0 310.30.0
Dribbling on the run26.90.0 26.90.0
Dribbling past opponent to shoot13.40.0 13.40.0
Interception: Shot at goal or approach26.90.0 26.90.0
Interception: passes between opponents413.80.0 413.80.0
Situations played: attack and defence413.80.0 413.80.0
TMSPE1241.43.9*00−3.9*
CPE517.22.3*00−2.3*
SNSG13.4−0.6 26.90.6
SSG1034.5−1.6 1655.21.6
CSG00−3.5*1034.53.5*
Adapted sport/SSG13.40.0 13.40.0
LOWithout opposition1034.53.0*13.4−3.0*
Static obstacles724.12.8*00−2.8*
Dynamic obstacles26.91.4 00−1.4
With opposition1034.5−5.0*2896.65.0*
Note: GS = Game situation; POG = Presence of goalkeeper; GP = Game phase; CONT-G = Type of content; CONT-S = Specific content; TM = Teaching means; LO = Level of the opposition. AITTB = Attacking individual technical-tactical behaviours; DITTB = Defensive individual technical-tactical behaviours; AITTM = Attacking individual technical-tactical moves; DITTM = Defensive individual technical-tactical moves; AGTTB = Attacking group technical-tactical behaviours; DGTTB = Defensive group technical-tactical behaviours; AGTTM = Attacking group technical-tactical moves; ATTTB = Attacking team technical-tactical behaviours; DTTTB = Defensive team technical-tactical behaviours. SPE = Simple practical exercise; CPE = Complex practical exercise; SNSG = Simple non-specific game; SSG = Simple specific game; CSG = Complex specific game. 1 This variable was added to be able to indicate the type of contents when working on a mixed game phase. * ASR > |1.96|.
Table 4. Differences and /or similarities in the eTL between the DIS and TGAS programmes.
Table 4. Differences and /or similarities in the eTL between the DIS and TGAS programmes.
VariableCategoryDISTGAS
n%ASR n%ASR
DOWithout opposition1862.15.1*00−5.1*
Numerical superiority of 3 or + students13.4−1.0 310.31.0
Numerical superiority of 2 students00−1.4 26.91.4
Numerical superiority of 1 student26.9−2.3*931.02.3*
Numerical equality827.6−1.9 1551.71.9
DTWalking517.22.3*00−2.3*
Gentle pace1344.84.1*00−4.1*
Intensity with rest827.6−1.9 1551.71.9
Intensity without rest26.9−3.1*1241.43.1*
High intensity without rest13.4−0.6 26.90.6
PSP<20%1034.51.5 517.2−1.5
21–40%413.8−0.4 517.20.4
41–60%00−1.0 13.41.0
61–80%00- 00-
>81%1551.7−0.8 1862.10.8
CLActivity in technical moves1965.55.3*00−5.3*
Opposition not counted931.0−3.2*2172.43.2*
Opposition counted00−2.8*724.12.8*
Matches of all kinds13.40.0 13.40.0
GSStatic activity517.21.7 13.4−1.7
Small spaces1655.20.0 1655.20.0
Medium spaces724.1−1.1 1137.91.1
Large spaces13.41.0 00−1.0
Repetition of spaces00−1.0 13.41.0
CIIndividual intervention1034.53.5*00−3.5*
Intervention of 2 students1655.20.0 1655.20.0
Intervention of 3 students13.4−1.7 517.21.7
Intervention of 4 students00−1.4 26.91.4
Intervention of all the students26.9−1.5 620.71.5
Note: DO = Degree of opposition; DT = Density of the task; PSP = Percentage of simultaneous performers; CL = Competitive load; GS = Game space; CI = Cognitive implication. *ASR > |1.96|.
Table 5. Mean quantification of eTL and eTL × Time of the tasks for each programme.
Table 5. Mean quantification of eTL and eTL × Time of the tasks for each programme.
VariableIPM ± DTminmax
eTLDIS14.34 ± 5.01828
TGAS20.21 ± 3.721628
eTL × TimeDIS6885.52 ± 2404.373840.0013,440.00
TGAS9699.31 ± 1783.957680.0013,440.00
Table 6. Relation and degree of association between the pedagogical variables.
Table 6. Relation and degree of association between the pedagogical variables.
VariableIPM ± DTx2glp VCp
GSDIS27.25 ± 19.1529.533160.021*0.7140.021*
TGAS38.25 ± 14.34
POG1DIS1.96 ± 1.861.01810.313 0.1320.313
TGAS2.00 ± 0.00
GPDIS1.48 ± 0.740.00021.000 0.0001.000
TGAS1.48 ± 0.74
CONT-GDIS5.00 ± 3.2742.60070.000*0.8570.000*
TGAS6.00 ± 2.00
CONT-G 22DIS5.00 ± 3.833.00020.223 0.6120.223
TGAS7.00 ± 2.00
CONT-S3DIS-5.311130.968 0.3030.968
TGAS-
TMDIS4.75 ± 1.5028.71850.000*0.7040.000*
TGAS5.75 ± 1.26
LODIS2.76 ± 1.7424.89030.000*0.6550.000*
TGAS4.86 ± 0.74
Note: GS = Game situation; POG = Presence of goalkeeper; GP = Game phase; CONT-G = Type of content; CONT-S = Specific content; TM = Teaching means; LO = Level of the opposition. 1 The Φ coefficient was used for this variable instead of V. 2 This variables was added to be able to indicate the type of contents when working on a mixed game phase. 3 The mean and standard deviation of this chain variable cannot be calculated as the values cannot be admitted. * p < 0.05.
Table 7. Relation and degree of association between the variables for eTL.
Table 7. Relation and degree of association between the variables for eTL.
VariableIPM ± DTUp dVCp
DODIS2.34 ± 1.84192.5000.000*1.0520.6900.000*
TGAS4.24 ± 0.99
DTDIS2.34 ± 0.97130.0000.000*1.4740.6900.000*
TGAS3.55 ± 0.63
PSPDIS3.21 ± 1.92355.0000.253 0.2700.2290.384
TGAS3.72 ± 1.71
CLDIS2.41 ± 0.68123.0000.000*1.5300.7290.000*
TGAS3.31 ± 0.54
GSDIS2.14 ± 0.74332.0000.124 0.3670.3090.235
TGAS2.45 ± 0.74
CIDIS1.90 ± 1.01198.5000.000*1.0170.5360.002*
TGAS2.93 ± 1.22
eTLDIS14.34 ± 5.01145.5000.000*1.3570.7930.004*
TGAS20.21 ± 3.72
eTL × TimeDIS6885.52 ± 2404.37145.5000.000*1.3570.7930.004*
TGAS9699.31 ± 1783.95
Note: DO = Degree of opposition; DT = Density of the task; PSP = Percentage of simultaneous performers; CL = Competitive load; GS = Game space; CI = Cognitive implication. * p < 0.05.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-Ceberino, J.M.; Feu, S.; Ibáñez, S.J. Comparative Study of Two Intervention Programmes for Teaching Soccer to School-Age Students. Sports 2019, 7, 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7030074

AMA Style

García-Ceberino JM, Feu S, Ibáñez SJ. Comparative Study of Two Intervention Programmes for Teaching Soccer to School-Age Students. Sports. 2019; 7(3):74. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7030074

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-Ceberino, Juan M., Sebastián Feu, and Sergio J. Ibáñez. 2019. "Comparative Study of Two Intervention Programmes for Teaching Soccer to School-Age Students" Sports 7, no. 3: 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7030074

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop