Next Article in Journal
Identifying Gifted Potential Through Positive Psychology Content
Previous Article in Journal
Introductory Physics Students Who Typically Worked Alone or in Groups: Insights from Gender-Based Analysis Before and During COVID-19
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/educsci14101136
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Tactical Knowledge for Learning an Alternative Invasion Sport

by
Olga Calle
,
Antonio Antúnez
*,
Sergio José Ibáñez
and
Sebastián Feu
Training Optimization and Sport Performance Research Group (GOERD), Sport Science Faculty, University of Extremadura, 10005 Caceres, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(10), 1136; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101136
Submission received: 22 July 2024 / Revised: 16 August 2024 / Accepted: 18 October 2024 / Published: 20 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Recent Advances in Physical Education and Sports)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The study of declarative and procedural knowledge in sport allows us to assess students’ tactical learning processes. The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the level of declarative and procedural knowledge acquired by students according to the pedagogical model and gender, after the application of two intervention programs for an alternative invasion sport, “Rosquilla”. This study involved 136 students distributed into six groups of Primary Education (fifth and sixth year) and Secondary Education (first year). Each group in the same year participated in a different intervention program, one based on the Game-Centered Model and the other on a hybrid model of the Game-Centered Model and the Sports Education Model. A descriptive analysis was carried out to determine the characteristics of the participants. Subsequently, an independent samples Mann–Whitney U-test was applied to compare the level of knowledge between the models and genders in the pre- and post-test periods. A Linear Mixed Model was used to analyze the level of knowledge of students within each group and compare them according to methodology and gender. The results indicate that both programs generated improvements in declarative and procedural knowledge. Therefore, students learn equally regardless of the methodological perspective and gender.

1. Introduction

The characteristics of invasive sports make them one of the most frequently used forms of knowledge by physical education teachers [1]. The teaching of invasive sports in Primary Education (PE) should be oriented towards the comprehensive development of pupils, integrating motor, cognitive and socio-affective aspects [2], as proclaimed in the educational legislation. Currently, games and alternative sports (GAS) are a trend that is experiencing a boom in school contexts. Proof of this can be seen in their incorporation into some regional curricula in Spain, following the approval of the Organic Law on Education, LOMLOE 3/2020, of 29 December. These modalities respond to curricular precepts, as they contribute to the comprehensive education of students [3], and can focus on motor, cognitive, affective and social development [4,5].
Pedagogical models are configured as long-term approaches, essential to achieve the method of learning proposed [6,7], which facilitates the integration of teaching techniques, styles, and strategies [8]. Therefore, the method of teaching is of great relevance in a sports context [9]. Traditionally, the learning of invasion sports focuses on technical elements, obviating tactical aspects [10], causing deficiencies in cognitive processes and decision making [11].
The Game-Centered Model (GCM), integral to the comprehensive teaching of sport, emphasizes fundamental concepts and practical applications that foster the internalization of knowledge and sports skills. The approach is player-focused, encouraging active participation in contextualized game situations to achieve meaningful learning [12,13]. Therefore, it is based on achieving development of tactical/technical intelligence from the game itself [13]. The teacher generates learning through interrogative feedback, which encourages continuous reflection in the students [14]. This trend favors tactical learning and decision making, enabling the participants to develop autonomy [15]. The Sports Education Model (SEM), designed by Siedentop [16,17], is considered one of the most accepted models in the last decade [18], since it proposes teaching through competencies based on roles, functions, and responsibilities. Fundamentally, it is supported by structural elements of sport that are adapted to the didactic context: seasons, affiliation, formal competition, registration, festivity and culminating events [17]. Its application encourages participation, motivation, autonomy, and responsibility in students [19]. However, it is necessary to specify that tasks for this model can be approached from different perspectives, a traditional prism model (reproduction) or an active model (inquiry) perspective, as in the comprehensive models for sport learning. Traditionally, they have been approached using the teaching technique of reproduction [17].
The efficacy of the GCM [12,13], the Sports Education Model (SEM) and Model Hybridization in invasive sports is verified by empirical studies [20], and these approaches can be used for alternative invasive sports [21]. The hybridization of models emerges from the need to respond more effectively to educational needs, as well as to make it possible to improve the functionality of these models [22,23,24]. The use of hybridization between the Game-Centered Model and the Sports Education Model has been proven to lead to progress in game understanding, student motivation and skill development [23,25,26].
In the practice of sport, the degree of tactical knowledge, understood as the ability to visualize the problems of the game and select the skills required to solve them, is decisive [27]. This knowledge favors students’ ability to effectively make decisions when developing sport practice [28,29,30]. Two types of knowledge have been distinguished, declarative and procedural [30,31]. Declarative knowledge focuses on the knowledge that a person has about something [32], and it is related to the technical–tactical aspects and rules of a specific sport [33]. However, procedural knowledge refers to the decisions made in concrete game situations; therefore, it encompasses the performance of movements and actions regarding different game situations [34,35,36]. Declarative knowledge learning must take place beforehand, as some mastery of declarative knowledge is required to improve procedural knowledge [14]. In this context, tactical knowledge benefits decision making in any sport activity [28,29,30,37]. The questioning phase of the GCM contributes in a relevant way to stimulating tactical awareness, and, therefore, to the development of declarative and procedural knowledge [38].
The importance of declarative and procedural knowledge in the acquisition of learning is evidenced by the specialized literature, focusing mainly on sports contexts [30,39,40]. We highlight works published in the educational field [41,42] in which cognitive learning is analyzed through declarative and procedural knowledge.
The acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge is achieved through the practice of the sport itself, with students’ experience being a determining factor in their level of knowledge, as more experienced schoolchildren usually obtain better results [37,43,44]. Therefore, sport practice outside the school context is influential in terms of the degree of declarative and procedural knowledge held by students.
Students’ sports preferences vary by gender; boys tend to gravitate towards sports that involve strength, physical contact, and competitiveness, such as basketball, soccer, and handball. In contrast, girls typically prefer sports that emphasize beauty, plasticity, and rhythm, such as figure skating, dance, and gymnastics [45,46]. In this context, differences in sport learning according to gender is an area little addressed by research. Serra-Olivares [47] proves that boys reach higher levels of declarative and procedural knowledge than girls in soccer practice, conditioned by previous experiences, since students with more experience obtain better results. However, the author himself claims the need for more studies to examine the relationships between tactical knowledge, experience and gender in school sports. Therefore, we can establish that both sport experience and gender are variables that influence the degree of declarative and procedural knowledge of students, regardless of the pedagogical model implemented. In this study, we selected an alternative invasion sport not known by the students, “Rosquilla”. This sport, which is included within the list of alternative invasion sports (collective sport of cooperation–opposition), was created by Professor Manuel Rodríguez Barriga, and contains characteristics of basketball, handball and indoor soccer. It is played on a rectangular court on which two circular areas (3 m) are drawn, inside which doughnuts (points) are marked. The object used by the players is a PVC hoop (28 cm diameter). In this sport, two teams of four or five players each play against each other. The duration of the game is three rounds of 10 min each with two breaks of 5 min each. The game starts with a jump-off between a player from each team. The aim is to score more points than the opposing team. Two players from the same team are required to score points; one player outside the point area throws the hoop into this area, which must be thrown over the arm of the player inside this area to score points. The player must then remove the hoop from their arm and place it on the ground inside this area. It is a non-contact sport; the defending player must maintain a minimum distance of one meter from the player holding the hoop. Also, the player holding the hoop may not take more than two steps with it, nor hold it for more than 5 s. The pedagogical aims are to encourage cooperation, teamwork and coeducation (mixed teams), promote equal opportunities for participants, minimize the technical needs and physical requirements of the participants, and adapt the sport to the characteristics of the students and the available space. In addition, it promotes the improvement of students’ physical abilities, coordination, laterality, spatial–temporal structures, mechanisms of perception, decision making and execution. Priority is given to tactical content rather than technical content, as well as improving the positioning and mobility of the participants [48]. An alternative invasion sport was selected because it responds to a greater extent to the educational needs of the area of physical education for Primary Education levels, favoring the participation of all pupils due to its novel, mixed, unknown and accessible characteristics. The main characteristics of this alternative sport called “Rosquilla” are included in Figure 1.
The analysis of tactical knowledge (declarative and procedural) provides insight into the cognitive processes of the learner [50]. This knowledge is of great importance in the learning of an invasion sport, as it is a determining factor in the effectiveness of the participants’ sport practice [28].
This research is beneficial for ensuring the sustainability of the educational and health systems, since it provides information on the influence of psychological aspects on healthy habits, the promotion of physical exercise and the adoption of active and healthy lifestyles in an educational context. The acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge is fundamental for true learning in invasion sports, covering the technical-tactical aspects, specific knowledge and rules of the specific sport, the development of movements in game situations and decision making. The application of some pedagogical models is decisive for the achievement of this learning. There is no empirical evidence that examines declarative and procedural knowledge considering gender and the pedagogical model within the area of PE in a novel sport for students. This research is crucial for promoting the sustainability of the educational and health systems, as it plays a significant role in enhancing the quality of teaching and learning processes. Understanding the differences in the acquisition of tactical knowledge (both declarative and procedural) based on various methodological approaches is key to encouraging greater sports participation, promoting physical activity and fostering the adoption of healthy lifestyles within an educational context. Likewise, there are few studies that analyze the acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge in the educational context of invasive alternative sports as a function of the pedagogical model; therefore, it is necessary to conduct research in this field. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge in students of Primary and Secondary Education as a function of the pedagogical model and gender, after the application of different intervention programs, with the alternative invasion sport “la Rosquilla” in an educational context. The pedagogical models used were the GCM and a Model of Hybridization of the GCM and SEM (MH).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

A quasi-experimental research design with two groups of repeated measures (pre-test and post-test) was established. Also, a longitudinal quantitative research approach was developed to determine the differences in the levels of declarative and procedural knowledge [51], after the implementation of two novel programs, since it was the first time the students had practiced both the alternative sport of “Rosquilla” and the proposed pedagogical model.

2.2. Participants

The participants were selected by non-probabilistic sampling, within the categories of convenience and participating subjects [51], due to its feasibility and accessibility for the researchers. The sample consisted of 136 students (74 girls and 62 boys) distributed into six natural groups of first year of Obligatory Secondary Education (OSE) and fifth and sixth years of Primary Education (M = 11.36; SD = 1.04), the former belonging to a public high school and the latter to a public school in the southwest of Spain. Each pedagogical model was randomly assigned to the groups. The class groups were not modified, so that the ecological validity of the study was assured. The inclusion criteria for participation in this study were as follows: (1) informed consent was obtained from the children’s parents/legal guardians; (2) the participants had to have attended at least 80% of the sessions; and (3) they had to have answered all items in the provided questionnaires. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the sample in relation to the pedagogical model and educational level.

2.3. Variables and Instruments

Two independent variables were configured, which corresponded to the following: (i) the intervention programs based on the pedagogical models, Game-Centered Model (GCM) and Model of Hybridization of the Game-Centered Model and Sports Education Model (MH); (ii) gender (male and female). On the other hand, the dependent variables were as follows: (i) the level of declarative knowledge and (ii) the level of procedural knowledge of the alternative invasion sport, “Rosquilla”, acquired by the students after the application of the two intervention programs.
The learning situations were similar in terms of their content, objectives, game phases and types of learning tasks, but differed in terms of teaching model (own characteristics). Both programs were validated by experts both in invasion sports and in the use of both models and obtained excellent values for content validity (Aiken’s V ≥ 0.73) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.99) according to a panel of 9 expert judges [49]. The two teaching models are based on active methodologies, although in the hybrid model, the students have more autonomy and receive delegated feedback from the teacher, who is a coach, for 50% of the motor time, through the different roles developed by the students in the classroom (coach, physical trainer, sports manager) and feedback by teams based on questioning. Figure 2 shows the structure of both intervention programs.
The declarative and procedural knowledge of the students was examined by means of the Declarative and Procedural Knowledge Test validated through a panel of seven experts, and we obtained adequate Aiken’s V values, since all the items presented univocity and relevance with an Aiken’s V > 0.90.
This instrument corresponds to a written test divided into two parts. The first part of the test assesses declarative knowledge, which refers to the theoretical knowledge of the sport, the “what to do” dimension, in which 12 items are included. In this part, questions are asked in the form of a test on the purpose of throwing, passing, reception, unmarking, feinting, etc. The second part examines procedural knowledge related to tactical resolution in game situations, the “how to do it” dimension, using images representing different game situations. This part contains 20 items in a multiple-choice format. Declarative and procedural knowledge were calculated from the percentage of correct answers to the items that make up the instrument. To guarantee fidelity in the application of each of the pedagogical models, the programs were carried out directly by the researchers, who ensured the correct implementation of the validated programs. The researchers are physical education teachers with knowledge of pedagogical models. The intervention programs were validated by experts in both sports and pedagogical models.
All analyses were conducted using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25 (IBM Corp. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) and Jamovi version 2.3 (The Jamovi Project, 2022).

2.4. Procedure

Before the intervention, the school management, the teachers involved and the legal guardians of the participants were informed of the objectives and characteristics of this study. The necessary permissions and informed consent were obtained to carry out the study. The researchers carried out all these procedures in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, adapted to the Social Sciences, always respecting the voluntariness and anonymity of the participants. Approval was also obtained from the Bioethics and Biosafety Commission of the University (159/2022).
This study was divided into five fundamental phases (Figure 3). In the first phase, the necessary authorizations and permits were obtained. Subsequently, a pre-test evaluation was carried out. In the third phase, the two learning situations were applied to the different educational levels. The intervention lasted approximately two months in each case, with two or three practical sessions per week depending on the educational level, during 12 sessions, which took place in a multi-sports court of the two schools in which the programs were developed. In the fourth phase, a post-test evaluation was carried out. Finally, the data collected were entered into statistical programs for analysis.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

First, criterion assumption tests were run to identify the characteristics of the study data [52]. A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test showed that the study variables did not meet the assumption of normality, so non-parametric mathematical models had to be used to test our hypotheses. A descriptive analysis was carried out to determine the characteristics of the participants according to the pedagogical model and gender.
Then, a Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples was performed to compare the levels of declarative and procedural knowledge between models and genders pre- and post-test [52]. A Linear Mixed Model (LMM) was used to analyze the levels of declarative and procedural knowledge of the students in the pre-test and post-test periods as a function of methodology and gender. This model allows us to consider the variability in the participants’ responses [53,54]. When the sample of variables does not meet normality, the Linear Mixed Model can be used [55]. The mean differences in declarative and procedural knowledge within subjects and between subjects, and the interaction between factors, were determined in relation to the pedagogical model, gender and educational level. The differences between groups according to the methodology, gender and interaction of these variables were identified with a Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparison test [52].
Finally, the effect sizes of the statistical analyses were calculated using Cohen’s d, partial eta squared (η2) and the observed power (ϕ). The Cohen’s d effect sizes were interpreted as follows: low (0.0–0.2), moderate (0.2–0.6), high (0.6–1.2), very high (>1.2). As for the effect size η2, it was interpreted as small (0.010–0.059), medium (0.060–0.139) and large (>0.140). In the case of observed power, values >0.80 were considered optimal [56,57].

3. Results

The descriptive results for each intervention program according to gender are presented in Table 2.
Better results were achieved in the post-test period for the two types of knowledge compared to the pre-test period for both programs; the mean post–pre-test values were identical for declarative knowledge with respect to the two programs (3.89). However, this post–pre-test difference was higher in the MH program for procedural knowledge. In Table 2, we can see that boys obtained higher levels of declarative and procedural knowledge in the pre-test and post-test periods compared to girls for both programs.
Figure 4 reflects the level of declarative and procedural knowledge of the two intervention programs in the pre-test and post-test periods with respect to gender.
Regarding the pedagogical models, only the differences in procedural knowledge in the post-test period were statistically significant (Z = −2.08; U = 1835; p = 0.04; d = 0.33). Meanwhile, in relation to gender, there were no significant differences.
Table 3 shows the results of the LMM, and allows us to visualize the differences in declarative and procedural knowledge between students before and after the intervention, as well as the differences in this knowledge in relation to the pedagogical model and in the interaction of the period with the model.
The results of the repeated measures LMM were statistically significant for the variable declarative knowledge in the within-subject factor (F = 871.47; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.87), for the variable procedural knowledge in the within-subject factor (F = 1476.79; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.92), and for the variable procedural knowledge in the interaction of period × model (F = 10.58; p = 0.001; η2 = 0.08).
The post hoc tests showed significant differences in declarative knowledge for the intra-subject factor, with a superior value in the post-test period (p < 0.001); in procedural knowledge for the intra-subject factor, with a superior value in the post-test period (p < 0.001); in declarative knowledge for the time × model interaction in Post MH–Pre GCM, with a superior value for Post MH (p < 0.001); in Pre GCM–Post GCM, with a superior value for Post GCM (p < 0.001); in Pre MH–Post GCM, with a superior value for Post GCM (p < 0.001); and in Pre MH–Post MH, with a superior value for Post MH (p < 0.001). Likewise, significant differences in procedural knowledge were found in the time × model interaction in Post MH–Pre GCM, with a higher value for Post-MH (p < 0.001); in Pre GCM-Post GCM, with a higher value at Post GCM (p < 0.001); in Pre MH–Post GCM, with a higher value for Post GCM (p < 0.001); and in Pre MH-Post MH, with a higher value at for Post MH (p < 0.001).
The LMM random effect control of the period and model factors for declarative and procedural knowledge is presented in Table 4.
These results showed improvements in the R2 Conditional in both variables, controlling for the random factor of the individual responses of the participants. There was significance for both variables, indicating that it is necessary to control for between-subject variability. A high ICC (ICC > 0.5) was obtained, suggesting that the individuality of the students has a significant effect on the results obtained.
Table 5 presents the LMM results we obtained on the declarative and procedural knowledge of the students before and after the intervention, as well as the differences in this knowledge in relation to gender and in the interaction of period with gender.
The results of the repeated measures LMM were statistically significant for the declarative knowledge variable in the within-subjects factor (F = 862.87; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.87) and for the procedural knowledge variable in the within-subjects factor (F = 1337.34; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.91).
The post hoc tests showed significant differences in declarative knowledge for the intra-subject factor, with a higher value in the post-test period (p < 0.001); in procedural knowledge for the intra-subject factor, with a higher value in the post-test period (p < 0.001); in declarative knowledge for the time × gender interaction for Post Male–Pre Female, with a higher value for Post Male (p < 0.001); in Pre Female–Post Female, with a higher value for Post Female (p < 0.001); in Pre Male–Post Female, with a higher value for Post Female (p < 0.001); and in Pre Male–Post Male, with a higher value for Post Male (p < 0.001). In addition, significant differences in procedural knowledge were found in the time × gender interaction in Post Male–Pre Female, with a higher value for Post Male (p < 0.001); in Pre Female–Post Female. with a higher value for Post Female (p < 0.001), in Pre Male–Post Female, with a higher value for Post Female (p < 0.001); and in Pre Male–Post Male, with a higher value for Post Male (p < 0.001).
The control of the LMM random effect of the period and gender factors for declarative and procedural knowledge is presented in Table 6.
These results showed improvements in the R2 Conditional in both variables, controlling for the random factor of individual participant response. There was significance for both variables, indicating that it is necessary to control for between-subject variability. A high ICC (ICC > 0.5) was obtained, suggesting that the individuality of the students affects the results obtained in a considerable way.

4. Discussion

The assessment of sport learning has traditionally been addressed through specific tests [28]. However, this type of method does not address the development of game actions and decision making, aspects of importance in invasive sports [58]. In this context, declarative and procedural knowledge are positioned as the most appropriate current tools to assess the cognitive aspects of invasive sports [50]. This research aimed to examine the level of declarative and procedural knowledge acquired after the application of two different intervention programs depending on the pedagogical model used and the gender of the participants. The results revealed that there were significant improvements in declarative and procedural knowledge for both programs, which were similar for the two pedagogical models used.
The data obtained show that there is homogeneity in the groups in terms of declarative and procedural knowledge with respect to the initial test in the two pedagogical models, which indicates that the students begin the interventions with the same level of tactical knowledge. Therefore, the previous experience of the students is a variable that does not affect the implementation of the programs, despite the findings of the scientific literature, where the level of learning is a determining factor, producing greater improvements in participants with more experience [37,41,43,44]. However, in our case, the practice of an alternative invasive sport unexplored by schoolchildren is a key feature in controlling for this variable. These results confirm the premises presented in the specialized literature, which establish that the practice of alternative sports encourages the participation of students and grants them equal access, as they are usually novel and unknown to the participants [4,59]. The same happened when analyzing the differences between genders in declarative and procedural knowledge in the initial test, finding that there was homogeneity between both genders. Again, we found that previous experience and the levels of initial tactical knowledge are similar for both boys and girls. This characteristic contrasts with the data obtained in other investigations for traditional invasion sports, which find superior improvements in the male gender influenced by the level of previous experience of the children [37,41], since in this study, all the subjects did not know the sport implemented. Therefore, the lack of prior experience with this sport, “Rosquilla”, adds significant value to our data, as all students begin at the same learning level. This allows for the evaluation of improvements without the bias of participants’ previous experiences, which often influences the outcomes in most research [37,43,44]. In this research, the level of tactical knowledge is equal in students for both pedagogical models and genders prior to the interventions; therefore, previous experience does not affect the results.
Our results indicate that there are improvements in the two types of knowledge in relation to the application of the two teaching methods, MH and GCM. However, no significant differences are found between the two pedagogical models. Therefore, learning is similar for both methodological perspectives. Both interventions are similar in relation to the approach to the tasks, since they are based on the GCM, which means that learning is similar in both cases. Empirical evidence proves that when comparing the GCM, SEM and direct instruction (DI) model in sports, the GCM usually obtains better results in terms of cognitive and physical knowledge [60]. Similarly, another study found that when comparing three models—direct instruction, the Tactical Games Approach and a learning situation without a defined methodological approach—the Tactical Games Approach resulted in higher levels of declarative and procedural knowledge among students [61]. Likewise, the hybridization of the GCM and SEM leads to progress in the learning of tactical knowledge [62]. Therefore, the use of an MH is more suitable for generating tactical knowledge as opposed to an SEM, so if we want to foster declarative and procedural learning, we should introduce an MH. In our study, the students learn in a similar way for both models, since no differences are found in declarative and procedural knowledge, due to the similarity of the programs and the absence of previous experience in both the sport and the pedagogical models practiced. Therefore, it is convenient to orient ourselves towards the use of the MH, as it promotes the improvement of other competences in the cognitive and socio-affective sphere through the implementation of roles, autonomy and responsibilities [17,18,19]. Likewise, this pedagogical tendency generates greater motivation in students [19,26,63], a dimension that fosters participation, involvement and enjoyment in students [26,64].
These results indicate that there is progress in the level of declarative and procedural knowledge for both genders, with no significant differences between them. These findings are mainly due to the absence of previous experience with the proposed sport. Some studies report differences between participants according to gender in the practice of sports, influenced by greater prior experience on the part of boys [37,41]. Antón-Candanedo and Fernández-Río [62] found greater learning improvements in tactical knowledge in girls, as they started from lower levels at the beginning of the intervention. The use of a novel practice such as an alternative sport is a method that favors egalitarian practice with respect to the gender of the students. Furthermore, the characteristics of these sports, among which the creation of mixed teams stands out [4,21,36], in our case, encourages both boys and girls to improve their level of tactical knowledge in a similar way and under the same conditions, favoring coeducation.

5. Conclusions

The two intervention programs based on the pedagogical models MH and GCM produce improvements in the level of the declarative and procedural knowledge of the students. Therefore, both methodologies are valid and effective for acquiring learning of tactical knowledge in the practice of an alternative invasion sport such as “Rosquilla”.
The students begin the programs with the same level of declarative and procedural knowledge, as they have no previous experience of the sport of “Rosquilla”. This circumstance allows progress to be assessed without being influenced by the students’ previous experiences.
All students improve in declarative and procedural knowledge through the implementation of the two programs based on the MH and GCM. Teachers can implement both methodologies to enhance tactical knowledge (declarative and procedural) in sports; therefore, this study contributes to proving that the use of these pedagogical models can increase tactical learning in sport. Also, no differences are shown in the level of tactical knowledge with respect to each of the teaching methods. Therefore, students learn in the same way under each of the methodological perspectives. The absence of previous experience in the sport practiced and pedagogical models applied are factors influencing these results. Due to the equality in the level of tactical learning, it is preferable to select the MH, as it has advantages, promotes greater experience and understanding of the sport and favors cognitive and socio-affective processes, providing greater educational possibilities.
Moreover, the level of learning improvement is equal for both genders. The application of an alternative invasion sport that is unknown to the pupils encourages equal participation thanks to the configuration of mixed teams and the absence of previous experience, leading to the participants acquiring the same level of declarative and procedural knowledge of the sport modality without differentiation between genders. Therefore, the use of alternative invasion sports, such as “Rosquilla”, is suitable for promoting co-educational and egalitarian learning, resulting in students of different genders learning equally.

5.1. Practical Applications

This study contributes to facilitating the work of PE teachers, as it provides relevant information by comparing the effects produced by two pedagogical models that place students at the center of the learning process. Both models favor tactical knowledge of an alternative invasion sport of which they lack previous experience, as it is unknown to all participants. The data obtained are important for the planning of the teaching–learning process by physical education teachers. The improvements in learning through the two pedagogical models determine that both can be implemented to generate tactical knowledge in the students; this will support the sustainability of both the education system and health system, as more effective learning promotes more engagement in sport and healthy lifestyles. On the other hand, due to the added cognitive competences provided by the MH, by incorporating the characteristics of the SEM, the socio-affective dimension is enriched, which is why it is recommended that we lean towards the use of this hybridized methodological perspective, as it contributes more significantly to the comprehensive development of students. It should be noted that our results and findings are generalizable to other sports with the same internal logic and educational level.
To implement these pedagogical models in the classroom, it is necessary for the teacher to previously design the programs in accordance with the pedagogical model and adapt them to the characteristics of the students and the specific context. This requires teachers to acquire the necessary knowledge to be able to develop each methodology. It is recommended that students become familiar with each model, with teachers dedicating some time for students to understand how each one works. This can be introduced over several courses or several times in the same course so that students can gain experience with each model. It is essential that the tasks in each programs are contextualized in game situations, with the students playing an active role, and should combine global game situations with modified games to promote tactical knowledge of the sport.

5.2. Limitations

Regarding the limitations of this study, we note firstly that its temporality could affect the assimilation of content by students, despite which there were significant improvements in declarative and procedural knowledge in both programs. In the scientific literature, the implementation of twelve sessions is considered a scarce number of sessions to generate truly significant learning in the SEM. Secondly, the inexperience of the participants regarding the pedagogical models proposed constitutes a bias in this research, as teachers must spend a certain amount of time trying to understand, regulate and control the proper functioning of the programs, to the detriment of the sport practice itself. Finally, the size of the sample, affected by the difficulty accessing a natural school context and its social reality, together with the scarce scientific evidence in this field, makes it difficult to establish generalizations without considering the size of the effect. Therefore, it is necessary to undertake further research to test the level of declarative and procedural knowledge in invasive alternative sports as a function of the teaching method and the gender of the students, extending both the duration of the intervention and the number of participants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.C. methodology, O.C., S.F. and A.A. formal analysis, O.C., S.F., A.A. and S.J.I.; investigation, O.C.; resources, O.C.; data curation, O.C.; writing—original draft preparation, O.C.; writing—review and editing, A.A., S.F. and S.J.I.; visualization, O.C., A.A., S.F. and S.J.I.; supervision, A.A., S.F. and S.J.I.; project administration, A.A.; funding acquisition, S.J.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The author Olga Calle Méndez was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (FPU20/02939). This study was co-funded by the Regional Department of Economy and Infrastructure of the Government of Extremadura (Spain) through the European Funds of Regional Development of the European Union (dossier number: GR21149).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Bioethics and Biosafety Commission of the University of Extremadura (protocol code: 159/2022, date of approval: 10 November 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all legal guardians of the participants.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Otero-Saborido, F.M.; Carmona, J.; Albornoz-Cabello, M.; Calvo-Lluch, Á.; Díaz, J.A. Teacher’s methodology of invasion games in primary school. Int. J. Med. Phys. Act. Sport Sci. 2014, 14, 69–87. [Google Scholar]
  2. Pérez-Pueyo, Á.; Hortigüela-Alcalá, D.; Casado-Berrocal, O.; Heras-Bernardino, C.; Herrán-Álvarez, I. Análisis y reflexión sobre el nuevo currículo de Educación Física. Rev. Española Educ. Física Deportes 2022, 463, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Calle, O.; Antúnez, A.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Feu, S. Pedagogical Models in Alternative Invasion Team Sports: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Calle, O.; Antúnez, A.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Feu, S. Conceptualización de los Juegos y Deportes Alternativos. In Pedagogia do Esporte: Ensino, Vivência e Aprendizagem do Esporte na Educação Física Escolar, 1st ed.; Landivar, M.J., Ed.; UNEMAT, Cáceres Mato Groso: Brazil, Spain, 2020; pp. 32–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Suero, S.F.; Morillo, A.H.; Montilla, V.G. Los deportes alternativos en el ámbito educativo. Rev. Educ. Mot. Investig. 2017, 6, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Casey, A.; Kirk, D. Models-Based Practice in Physical Education, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 1–128. [Google Scholar]
  7. Metzler, M. Instructional Models in Physical Education, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 2–426. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kirk, D. Model-based teaching, and assessment in Physical Education: The Tactical Games Model. In Physical Education: Essential Issues; Green, K., Hardman, K., Eds.; Sage Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2005; pp. 128–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Stolz, S.; Pill, S. A narrative approach to exploring TGfU-GS. Sport Educ. Soc. 2016, 21, 239–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gray, S.; Sproule, J. Developing pupils’ performance in team invasion games. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2011, 16, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Griffin, L.; Butler, J. Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2005; pp. 1–238. [Google Scholar]
  12. González-Víllora, S.; Fernández-Río, F.J.; Guijarro, E.; Sierra-Díaz, M.J. Los Modelos Centrados en el Juego para la Iniciación Comprensiva del Deporte, 1st ed.; Morata: Madrid, Spain, 2021; pp. 15–245. [Google Scholar]
  13. Harvey, S.; Jarrett, K. A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2014, 19, 278–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. 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. 2016, 21, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. González-Víllora, S. Teaching Games for Understanding (TGFU). Enseñanza Comprensiva del deporte. In Los Modelos Pedagógicos en Educación Física: Qué, Cómo, por Qué y Para Qué, 1st ed.; Pérez-Pueyo, Á., Hortigüela-Alcalá, D., Fernández-Río, J., Eds.; Universidad de León, Servicio de Publicaciones: León, Spain, 2021; pp. 50–94. [Google Scholar]
  16. Siedentop, D. Sport Education: Quality PE Through Positive Sport Experiences, 1st ed.; Human Kinetics Publishers: Champaign, IL, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  17. Siedentop, D.; Hastie, P.; Van der Mars, H. Complete Guide to Sport Education; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gutiérrez, D.; Segovia, Y.; García-López, L.M.; Sánchez-Mora, D. Evaluation of a program to expand use of sport education model: Teachers’ perception and experience. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2020, 15, S345–S358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. García-López, L.M.; Calderón, A. Educación Deportiva. In Los Modelos Pedagógicos en Educación Física: Qué, Cómo, por Qué y para Qué, 1st ed.; Pérez-Pueyo, Á., Hortigüela-Alcalá, D., Fernández-Río, J., Eds.; Universidad de León, Servicio de Publicaciones: León, Spain, 2021; pp. 94–122. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fernández-Río, J.; Hortigüela-Alcalá, D.; Pérez-Pueyo, A. Revisando los modelos pedagógicos en educación física. Ideas clave para incorporarlos al aula. Rev. Española Educ. Física Deportes 2018, 423, 57–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Feu, S. ¿Son los juegos deportivos alternativos una posibilidad para favorecer la coeducación en las clases de Educación Física? Campo Abierto Rev. Educ. 2008, 27, 31–47. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dyson, B.; Griffin, L.L.; Hastie, P. Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations. Quest-Ill.-Natl. Assoc. Phys. Educ. High. Educ. 2004, 56, 226–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. González-Víllora, S.; Evangelio, C.; Sierra, J.; Fernández-Río, J. Hybridizing pedagogical models: A systematic review. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2019, 25, 1056–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hernado-Garijo, A.; Hortigüela-Alcalá, D.; Pérez-Pueyo, A. ¿Por qué y para qué de la hibridación de los modelos pedagógicos? In Los Modelos Pedagógicos en Educación Física: Qué, Cómo, por Qué y para Qué, 1st ed.; Pérez-Pueyo, Á., Hortigüela-Alcalá, D., Fernández-Río, J., Eds.; Universidad de León, Servicio de Publicaciones: León, Spain, 2021; pp. 320–350. [Google Scholar]
  25. Farias, C.F.; Mesquita, I.R.; Hastie, P.A. Game Performance and Understanding Within a Hybrid Sport Education Season. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2015, 34, 363–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gil-Arias, A.; Harvey, S.; Carceles, A.; Praxedes, A.; Del Villar, F. Impact of a hybrid TGfU-Sport Education unit on student motivation in physical education. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0179876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mitchell, S.A.; Oslin, J.L.; Griffin, L.L. Teaching Sports Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach, 4th ed.; Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  28. González-Víllora, S.; García-López, L.M.; Gutiérrez-Díaz, D.; Contreras-Jordán, O.R. Tactical awareness and decision making in youth football players (12 years): A descriptive study. J. Study Educ. Dev. 2010, 33, 489–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Moreno, M.P.; Moreno, A.; García-González, L.; Ureña, A.; Hernández, C.; Del Villar, F. An Intervention Based on Video Feedback and Questioning to Improve Tactical Knowledge in Expert Female Volleyball Players. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2016, 122, 911–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sgrò, F.; Quinto, A.; Lipoma, M.; Stodden, D. A Multidimensional Approach to Talent Identification in Youth Volleyball through Declarative Tactical Knowledge and Functional Fitness. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2024, 9, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Moreno, J.A.; Martínez, C.; Villodre, N.A. Gender and attitudes toward the pr ard the practice of actice of physical activit ysical activity and sport y and sport. Int. J. Sport Sci. 2006, 2, 20–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Anderson, J.R. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychol. Rev. 1982, 89, 369–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barca, M.; Quinto, A.M.V.; Sgrò, F. Assessing Declarative Tactical Knowledge in Physical Education: Theoretical Model and Practical Perspectives. In Using Motor Games in Teaching and Learning Strategy; Gil Madrona, P., Ed.; IGI Global Publisher: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 277–293. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cañadas, M.; Ibáñez, S.J.; García, J.; Parejo, I.; Feu, S. Game situations in youth basketball practices. Int. J. Med. Sci. Phys. Act. Sport 2013, 13, 41–54. [Google Scholar]
  35. French, K.E.; Thomas, J.R. The relation off knowledge development to children’s basketball performance. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 1987, 9, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McPherson, S.L. The Development of Sport Expertise: Mapping the Tactical Domain. Quest 1994, 46, 223–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Serra-Olivares, J.; García-López, L.M.; Calderón, A.; Cuevas-Campos, R. Relación del conocimiento táctico de jóvenes futbolistas con la edad, la experiencia y el nivel de pericia. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2015, 15, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Feu, S. ¿Por qué un modelo centrado en el juego para el balonmano escolar? Análisis comparado de tareas de aprendizaje. In Innovaciones Científicas Para el Entrenamiento en Balonmano, 1st ed.; Feu, S., Ibáñez, S.J., Antúnez, A., Eds.; Universidad de Extremadura, Servicio de publicaciones: Cáceres, Spain, 2020; pp. 11–38. [Google Scholar]
  39. Balakrishnan, M.; Rengasamy, S.; Aman, M.S. Effect of teaching games for understanding approach on students’ cognitive learning outcome. Sch. Ciencia. Res. Innovación 2011, 5, 714–716. [Google Scholar]
  40. Blomqvist, M.; Vänttinen, T.; Luhtanen, P. Assessment of secondary school students’ decision-making and game-play ability in soccer. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2005, 10, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. García-Ceberino, J.M.; Gamero, M.G.; Feu, S.; Ibáñez, S.J. Experience as a determinant of declarative and procedural knowledge in school football. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. García, J.A.; Ruiz, L.M. Análisis comparativo de dos modelos de intervención en el parendizaje del balonmano. Rev. Psicol. Deporte 2003, 12, 55–66. [Google Scholar]
  43. Giacomini, D.S.; Soares, V.D.O.; Santos, H.F.; Matías, C.J.; Greco, P.J. O conhecimento tático declarativo e procesual em jugadores de futebol de diferentes escalas. Motricidade 2011, 7, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kannekens, R.; Elferink-Gemser, M.T.; Visscher, C. Tactical skills of world-class youth soccer teams. J. Sports Sci. 2009, 27, 807–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Koivula, N. Perceived characteristics of sports categorized as gender-neutral, feminine and masculine. J. Sport Behav. 2001, 24, 377–393. [Google Scholar]
  46. With-Nielsen, N.; Pfister, G. Gender constructions and negotiations in physical education: Case studies. Sport Educ. Soc. 2011, 16, 645–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Serra-Olivares, J. Conocimiento sobre la táctica deportiva de alumnos de educación primaria. SPORT TK-Rev. EuroAmericana Cienc. Deporte 2014, 3, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Rodríguez-Barriga, C.M. La Rosquilla. In Deportes Alternativos, 1st ed.; Chamorro, C., Miña, T., Eds.; INDE: Alicante, Spain, 2023; pp. 27–38. [Google Scholar]
  49. Calle, O.; Antúnez, A.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Feu, S. Validación de dos programas de intervención para el aprendizaje del deporte alternativo “la Rosquilla”. E-Balonmano Com J. Sports Sci. 2024, 20, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Otero-Saborido, F.M.; González-Jurado, J.A.; Calvo-Lluch, Á. Validación de instrumentos para la medición del conocimiento declarativo y procedimental y la toma de decisiones en el fútbol escolar. Retos Nuevas Tend. En Educ. Física Deporte Y Recreación 2012, 22, 65–69. [Google Scholar]
  51. O’Donoghue, P. Statistics for Sport and Exercise Studies: An Introduction; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  52. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd ed.; Publicaciones Sage: London, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  53. Casals, M.; Langohr, K.; Carrasco, J.L.; Ronnegard, L. Parameter estimation of Poisson generalized linear mixed models based on three different statistical principles: A simulation study. Sort-Stat. Oper. Res. Trans. 2015, 39, 281–307. [Google Scholar]
  54. Iannaccone, A.; Conte, D.; Cortis, C.; Fusco, A. Usefulness of Linear Mixed-Effects Models to Assess the Relationship between Objective and Subjective Internal Load in Team Sports. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Waterman, M.J.; Birch, J.B.; Abdel-Salam, A.S.G. Several nonparametric and semiparametric approaches to linear mixed model regression. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 2015, 85, 956–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cárdenas, M.; Arancibia, H.A. Potencia estadística y cálculo del tamaño del efecto en G*Power: Complementos a las pruebas de significación estadística y su aplicación en psicología. Salud Soc. 2014, 5, 210–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Erlbaum: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  58. Oslin, J.L.; Mitchell, S.A.; Griffin, L.L. The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 1998, 17, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Martos-García, D.; Fernández-Lasa, U.; Usabiaga, O. Coeducación y deportes colectivos. La participación de las alumnas en entredicho. Cult. Cienc. Deporte 2020, 15, 411–419. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hernández-Hernández, E.; Ortega, E.; Mayordomo, M.; Palao, J.M. Efecto de distintos planteamientos metodológicos en clases de educación física sobre el aprendizaje de tres habilidades de voleibol. Sport TK 2016, 5, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gamero, M.G.; García-Ceberino, J.M.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Feu, S. Analysis of Declarative and Procedural Knowledge According to Teaching Method and Experience in School Basketball. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Antón-Candanedo, A.; Fernández-Río, J. Hibridando modelos pedagógicos para la mejora de la comprensión táctica de estudiantes: Una investigación a través del Duni. Ágora Para Educ. Físicay Deporte 2017, 19, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Burgueño, R.; Medina-Casaubón, J.; Morales-Ortiz, E.; Cueto-Martín, B.; Sánchez-Gallardo, I. Educación Deportiva versus Enseñanza Tradicional: Influencia sobre la regulación motivacional en el alumnado de Bachillerato. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2017, 17, 87–98. [Google Scholar]
  64. Gil-Arias, A.; Claver, F.; Práxedes, A.; Del Villar, F.; Harvey, S. Autonomy support, motivational climate, enjoyment and perceived competence in physical education: Impact of a hybrid teaching games for understanding/sport education unit. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2020, 26, 36–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Education 14 01136 g001
Figure 1. Graphical representation of “Rosquilla” (extracted from Calle et al. [49].
Figure 1. Graphical representation of “Rosquilla” (extracted from Calle et al. [49].
Education 14 01136 g001
Education 14 01136 g002
Figure 2. Structure of the GCM and MH intervention programs. Note: GCM = Game-Centered Model; MH = Model of Hybridization of the Game-Centered Model and Sports Education Model. The tactical contents are similar for both programs.
Figure 2. Structure of the GCM and MH intervention programs. Note: GCM = Game-Centered Model; MH = Model of Hybridization of the Game-Centered Model and Sports Education Model. The tactical contents are similar for both programs.
Education 14 01136 g002
Education 14 01136 g003
Figure 3. Procedure developed during this study.
Figure 3. Procedure developed during this study.
Education 14 01136 g003
Education 14 01136 g004
Figure 4. Declarative and procedural knowledge of two intervention programs in pre-test and post-test periods with respect to gender.
Figure 4. Declarative and procedural knowledge of two intervention programs in pre-test and post-test periods with respect to gender.
Education 14 01136 g004
Table 1. Students’ characteristics by pedagogical model and education level.
Table 1. Students’ characteristics by pedagogical model and education level.
MethodologyEducation Level
1st Year of OSE6th Year of PE5th Year of PE
n%n%n%
GCM2921.32417.61813.2
MH2719.82417.61410.3
Note: n = participants; % = percentage of participation; GCM = Game-Centered Model; MH = Model of Hybridization of the Game-Centered Model and the Sports Education Model; OSE = Obligatory Secondary Education; PE = Primary Education.
Table 2. Descriptive results for each intervention program according to gender.
Table 2. Descriptive results for each intervention program according to gender.
ProgramKnowledgeGenderPre-Test
M ± SD		Post-Test
M ± SD		Post–Pre-Test Difference
GCMDeclarativeMale5.63 ± 1.359.49 ± 1.253.86
Female5.42 ± 2.109.33 ± 1.693.91
TOTAL5.52 ± 1.769.41 ± 1.483.89
ProceduralMale9.14 ± 2.2315.49 ± 2.286.35
Female9.03 ± 3.1315.31 ± 2.326.28
TOTAL9.08 ± 2.6915.39 ± 2.286.31
ProgramKnowledgeGenderPre-Test
M ± SD		Post-Test
M ± SD		Post–Pre-Test Difference
MHDeclarativeMale6.00 ± 2.139.70 ± 1.663.70
Female5.55 ± 2.089.58 ± 1.524.03
TOTAL5.74 ± 2.099.63 ± 1.573.89
ProceduralMale9.37 ± 2.6316.67 ± 2.497.30
Female8.18 ± 2.1915.79 ± 2.227.61
TOTAL8.68 ± 2.4416.15 ± 2.367.47
Note: M = median; SD = standard deviation; GCM = Game-Centered Model; MH = Model of Hybridization of the Game-Centered Model and the Sports Education Model.
Table 3. Results of the repeated measures LMM of the declarative and procedural knowledge variables of the period and model factors.
Table 3. Results of the repeated measures LMM of the declarative and procedural knowledge variables of the period and model factors.
VariablesFpη2ϕPost Hoc
Intra-subject
period
(pre–post-test)		Declarative knowledge871.47<0.001 *0.871.00a
Procedural knowledge1476.79<0.001 *0.921.00a
Inter-subject
model
(HM and GCM)		 Declarative knowledge0.690.4080.010.13-
Procedural knowledge0.290.590.0020.07-
Period × model interaction Declarative knowledge3.580.990.0010.05b, c, d, e
Procedural knowledge10.580.001 *0.080.92b, c, d, e
Note: GCM = Game-Centered Model; MH = Model of Hybridization of Game-Centered Model and Sports Education Model; pre = pre-test; post = post-test; a = pre–post-test; b = Pre GCM–Post GCM; c = Pre MH–Post MH; d = Post MH–Pre GCM; e = Pre MH–Post GCM; F = statistical F; η2 = effect size; ϕ = observed power; * p < 0.05.
Table 4. Control of the LMM random effect of the period and model factors.
Table 4. Control of the LMM random effect of the period and model factors.
VariablesR2 MarginalR2 ConditionalAICpICC
Declarative knowledge0.5570.8281083< 0.001 *0.611
Procedural knowledge0.6660.8781267<0.001 *0.635
Note: AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; ICC = Interclass Correlation Coefficient; * p < 0.05.
Table 5. The results of the repeated measures LMM of the declarative and procedural knowledge variables for the time and gender factors.
Table 5. The results of the repeated measures LMM of the declarative and procedural knowledge variables for the time and gender factors.
VariablesFpη2ϕPost Hoc
Intra-subject
Period
(pre–post-test)		Declarative knowledge862.87<0.001 *0.871.00a
Procedural knowledge1337.34<0.001 *0.911.00a
Inter-subject
Gender
(M and F)		 Declarative knowledge0.1210.730.010.12-
Procedural knowledge0.780.380.020.30-
Period × gender interaction Declarative knowledge0.480.490.040.11b, c, d, e
Procedural knowledge0.290.590.0020.10b, c, d, e
Note: M = male; F = female; Pre = pre-test; post = post-test; a = pre–post; b = pre F–Post F; c = Pre M–Post M; d = Post M–Pre F; e = Pre M–Post F; F = statistical F; η2 = effect size; ϕ = observed power; * p < 0.05.
Table 6. Control of the random effect of the Linear Mixed Model of the period and model factors.
Table 6. Control of the random effect of the Linear Mixed Model of the period and model factors.
VariablesR2 MarginalR2 ConditionalAICpICC
Declarative knowledge0.5560.8281083<0.001 *0.611
Procedural knowledge0.6640.8671268<0.001 *0.605
Note: AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; ICC = Interclass Correlation Coefficient; * p < 0.05.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Calle, O.; Antúnez, A.; Ibáñez, S.J.; Feu, S. Analysis of Tactical Knowledge for Learning an Alternative Invasion Sport. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101136

AMA Style

Calle O, Antúnez A, Ibáñez SJ, Feu S. Analysis of Tactical Knowledge for Learning an Alternative Invasion Sport. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(10):1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101136

Chicago/Turabian Style

Calle, Olga, Antonio Antúnez, Sergio José Ibáñez, and Sebastián Feu. 2024. "Analysis of Tactical Knowledge for Learning an Alternative Invasion Sport" Education Sciences 14, no. 10: 1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101136

APA Style

Calle, O., Antúnez, A., Ibáñez, S. J., & Feu, S. (2024). Analysis of Tactical Knowledge for Learning an Alternative Invasion Sport. Education Sciences, 14(10), 1136. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14101136

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