Document Type : Original research study
Authors
1 Kharazmi University of Tehran
2 Motor Behavior Department, Nasibeh Teacher Training College, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
The present study was conducted to compare the effect of linear and nonlinear pedagogy on students̓ participation motivation in physical education class. 40 students were selected by random sampling method and were assigned to two groups of linear and nonlinear pedagogy consisting of 20 subjects per each group. In the pre-test, participants were asked to complete the Participation Motivation Questionnaire (PMQ). Flights of hurdles were used as the task completed in a 50-meter route. Traditional education approach was applied in linear pedagogy group. In nonlinear pedagogy group, constraint changes (distance and height of barriers) were used. The post-test was performed after acquisition phase. Results showed that linear and nonlinear teaching methods had a significant effect on student’s participation motivation. It was also found that, the subjects in non-linear training group had better participation motivation than those in the linear training group. In this regard, physical education teachers and educators are suggested to use a nonlinear approach to enhance student’s participation motivation
Keywords
Main Subjects
1. Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of applied psychology, 88(1), 87.
2. Chang, M. Y. L., Chow, J. Y., Button, C., & Tan, C. W. K. (2017). Nonlinear pedagogy and its role in encouraging 21st century competencies through physical education: A Singapore experience. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37(4), 483-499.
3. Chen, X., Sekine, M., Hamanishi, S., Yamagami, T., & Kagamimori, S. (2005). Associations of lifestyle factors with quality of life (QOL) in Japanese children: a 3‐year follow‐up of the Toyama Birth Cohort Study. Child: care, health and development, 31(4), 433-439.
4. Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: Does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 73(4), 408-415.
5. Chow J.Y, Davids K, Hristovski R, Araújo D, Passos P. (2011). Nonlinear pedagogy: Learning design for self-organizing neurobiological systems. New Ideas in Psychology, 29, 189–200.
6. Chow, J. Y. (2013). Nonlinear learning underpinning pedagogy: evidence, challenges, and implications. Quest, 65(4), 469-484.
7. Crossman, E. R. F. W. (1959). A theory of the acquisition of speed-skill∗. Ergonomics, 2(2), 153-166.
8. Davids K, Button C, Araújo D, and Renshaw I, Hristovski R. (2006). Movement models from sports provide representative task constraints for studying adaptive behavior in human movement systems. Adaptive Behavior 14, 73–95.
9. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macro theory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian psychology/Psychologies Canadian, 49(3), 182.
10. Fooladian, J., Sohrabi, M., Attarzad, H., Farsi, A. (2009). The Relationship between Sport Participation Motivation and Sport Orientation of Athletic Students. Journal of Olympic, 17(4), 29-39. In Persian.
11. Frederick-Recascino, C. M. (2002). Self-determination theory and participation motivation research in the sport and exercise domain. Handbook of self-determination research, University Rochester Press, Chapter 13, pp 277.
12. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362.
13. Gill, D. L., Gross, J. B., & Huddleston, S. (1983). Participation motivation in youth sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 14(1), 1–14.
14. Gill, S. J., Lowenberg, M. H., Neild, S. A., Crespo, L. G., Krauskopf, B., & Puyou, G. (2015). Nonlinear dynamics of aircraft controller characteristics outside the standard flight envelope. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 38(12), 2301-2308.
15. Kandola, A., Hendrikse, J., Lucassen, P. J., & Yücel, M. (2016). Aerobic exercise as a tool to improve hippocampal plasticity and function in humans: practical implications for mental health treatment. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 10, 1-25.
16. Glazier, P. S., & Davids, K. (2009). Constraints on the complete optimization of human motion. Sports Medicine, 39(1), 15-28.
17. Schollhorn, W., Hegen, P., & Davids, K. (2012). The nonlinear nature of learning-A differential learning approach. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 5(1), 100-112.
18. Komar, P., Bennett, S. D., Stannigel, K., Habraken, S. J. M., Rabl, P., Zoller, P., & Lukin, M. D. (2013). Single-photon nonlinearities in two-mode optomechanics. Physical Review A, 87(1), 1-10.
19. Körner, S., & Staller, M. S. (2018). From system to pedagogy: towards a nonlinear pedagogy of self-defense training in the police and the civilian domain. Security Journal, 31(2), 645-659.
20. Lee, M. C. Y., Chow, J. Y., Komar, J., Tan, C. W. K., & Button, C. (2014). Nonlinear pedagogy: an effective approach to cater for individual differences in learning a sports skill. Plops one, 9(8), 1-13.
21. Moy, B., Renshaw, I., & Davids, K. (2016). The impact of nonlinear pedagogy on physical education teacher education students’ intrinsic motivation. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(5), 517-538.
22. Ormrod, J. E. (1995). Educational psychology: Principles and applications. Pearson College Div; 1st edition, London, Merrill.
23. Page, G. T., Thomas, J. B., & Marshall, A. R. (1978). International dictionary of education. 1st edition, New York, MIT Press.
24. Payne, G., & Isaacs, L. (2012). Human motor development: A lifespan approach, 8th Ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Pp. 352-381.
25. Regar, E., Akasaka, T., Adriaenssens, T., & Barlis, P. (2012). Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies. J Am Coll Cardiol, 59, 1058-1072.
26. Renshaw, I., Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., & Button, C. (2015). Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction. 1st Edition, New York, Routledge.
27. Renshaw, I., Davids, K., & Savelsbergh, G. J. (Eds.). (2010). Motor learning in practice: A constraints-led approach. 1st Edition, New York, Routledge.
28. Renshaw, I., Oldham, A. R., & Bawden, M. (2012). Nonlinear pedagogy underpins intrinsic motivation in sports coaching. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 5, 88-99.
29. Renshaw, I., Davids, K., Newcombe, D., & Roberts, W. (2019). The Constraints-Led Approach: Principles for Sports Coaching and Practice Design. 1st Edition, New York, Routledge.
30. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
31. Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. Ariel, 128 (151.189), 155.
32. Schmidt, R. A., Lee, T. D., Winstein, C., Wulf, G., & Zelaznik, H. N. (2018). Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. 6th edition, New York, Human kinetics.
33. Shafizadeh, M., Bahram,A. (2007). The Study of Validity and Reliability in The Participation Motivation Questionnaire and Task and EGO Orientation in Sport Questionnaire Among the Secondary and High School Students of Tehran. Research on Sport Science, 4(14), 15-31. In Persian.
34. Tan, C. W. K., Chow, J. Y., & Davids, K. (2012). ‘How does TGfU work?’ examining the relationship between learning design in TGfU and a nonlinear pedagogy. Physical education and sport pedagogy, 17(4), 331-348.
35. Tinning, R. I. (2009). Pedagogy and human movement: Theory, practice, research. 1st Edition, London, Routledge.
36. Williams, A. M., & Hodges, N. J. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: Challenging tradition. Journal of sports sciences, 23(6), 637-650.
)