UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
Start | FAQ | About

QR Code Link :

Type :article
Subject :GV Recreation Leisure
ISSN :1112-9867
Main Author :K. Jeganathan Sanmuga Nathan, Salimin Norkhalid, Shahril M. I.,
Title :A comparative analysis of badminton game instructions effect of non-linear pedagogy and linear pedagogy (IR)
Year of Publication :2017
PDF Full Text :The author has requested the full text of this item to be restricted.

Full Text :
The recent implementation of TGfU pedagogy among Malaysian schools game curriculum challenging teachers who are comfortable with technical-skill driven Linear Pedagogy (LP).This conundrum led to this quasi experimental pre-post-test design study using n = 56 students aged 13±.23 years old investigated Non Linear Pedagogy (NP) and LP models using badminton curriculum in terms of tactical decision making, recovery movement to base, skill execution of drop shots and smash in badminton doubles game play. Findings, as for tactical decision making, recovery to base, drop shot and smash in doubles game play, ANCOVA and ANOVA statistics indicated significant improved performance via NP compared to LP. Conclusion, implementing NP in schools would further strengthen TGfU as teachers can adjust tactics, skill tasks to the performer’s abilities and situated learning environment

[1] Blomqvist, M.,Luhtanen, P.& Laakso. Comparison of Two Types of Instruction in Badminton. European Journal of Physical Education., 2001, 6(2), 139-155, doi:10.1080/1740898010060206 [2] Blomqvist, M., Luhtanen, P., & Lasko, L. Expert-novice difference in game performance and game understanding of youth badminton players. European Journal of Physical Education., 2000, 5, 208-219. [3] Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. A model for the teaching of games in the secondary schools. The Bulletin of Physical Education., 1986, pp. 5-8. [4] Chatzipantali, A., Digelidis, N., Karatzoglidis C., & Dean, R. Promoting students’ metacognitive behaviour in Physical Education through TGfU. American Journal of Educational Science., 2015, 1(2), 28-36. [5] Chow JY, David K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. Nonlinear Pedagogy in skill execution: An Introduction.Taylor & Francis, London., 2012. [6] Chow JY & Atencio, M. Complex and nonlinear pedagogy and the implications for physical education. Sports, Education and Societ., 2012. [7] Chow JY, Davids K, Button C, Shuttleworth, R, Renshaw & Araujo, D. The role of nonlinear pedagogy in Physical Education. Review of Educational Research., 2007, 77(3), 251-278 . [8] David K, Button, C & Benett, S. Dynamics of Skill Acquisition: A Constraints-Led Approach. Champaign, IL, Human kinetics., 2008 [9] French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., & Jones, J. The effects of a 6 weekunit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching Physical Education., 1996, 15, 439-463. [10] Gray, LR & Airsan, P. Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Merrill Prentice Hall. Colombus, Ohio., 2003. [11] Griffin, L. L., & Patton, K. Two decades of teaching games for understanding: Looking at the past, present and future in Griffin, L.L., & Butler, J.I. Teaching games for understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics., 2005. [12] Grehaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, P. The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports. QUEST. National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education., 2001, 53, 59-75. [13] Hopper, T. Teaching games for understanding: The importance of student emphasis over content emphasis. Journal of Health, Physical Education, Recreation & Dance., 2002, 73(7),44-48 [14] KPM. Huraian sukatan pelajaran KBSM, Pendidikan Jasmani. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, Putrajaya., 2002. [15] KPM . Kurikulum Standard Sekolah Menengah, Pendidikan Jasmani dan Pendidikan Kesihatan. Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran tingkatan satu. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, Putrajaya.,2016. [16] Kirk, D., & McPhail, A. Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Educatin., 2002, 21, 177-192. [17] Lee, M., Chow, J.Y., Komar, J. & Tan, C., & Button, C. Nonlinear Pedagogy: An Effective Approach to Cater for Individual Differences in Learning a Sports Skill., 2014, 9(8), doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104744 [18] Light, R., & Fawns, R. Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. National Association for Kinesiology and Physical Education in Higher Education., 2003, 55, 161-176. [19] Martin, A.J., & Gaskin, C.J. An Integrated Physical Education Model. Journal of Physical Education New Zealand Te Kotuku Rerenge., 2004, 37, 61-69. [20] Memmert, D et al. Top 10 research questions related to Teaching Games for Understanding. Research Quarterly for Execise and Sport., 2015, 80, 347-359. [21] Mitchell, S.A., Oslin, J.L., & Griffin, L.L.Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach for ages 7-18. Champaign: Human Kinetics., 2013. [22] Mitchell, S.A., Oslin, J.L., & Griffin, L.L. Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A Tactical Games Approach. Champaign: Human Kinetics., 2005. [23] Metzler, M. Implications of models-based instruction for research on teaching: a focus on teaching games for understanding in Griffin LL, Butler JI (eds) Teaching games for understanding: theory, research, and practice. Human Kinetics, Champaign. , 2005. [24] Nathan, S. The effect of Teaching Games of Understandings as a coaching instruction had on adjust, cover and heart rate among Malaysian and Indian junior hockey players.Sports., 2017, 5(44),1-14. [25] Nathan, S. Badminton instructional in Malaysianmschools: a comparative analysis of TGfU and SDT pedagogical models. SpringerPlus.,2016,5:1215,doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-2872-3 [26] Nathan S, Sharif A, R & Salimin, N. The effect of teaching games for understanding coaching context on elite Malaysian school player’s in general hockey skills and mini game play. International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Medicine and Sciences., 2014, 2(4),15-24. [27] Nathan S, Haynes J . A move to an innovative games teaching model: Style E Tactical (SET). Asia Pac J Health Sports Phys Educ., 2013, 4(2), 287–302. [28] Nathan. S, Hashim, A , Boon, K., Sharif, A, Madon, M & Rayid, N. Effect of Teaching Game for Understanding in 5 versus 5 mini game play, cardiovascular fitness, leg power and 30m running speed among Malaysian School elite players. British Journal of Arts and Social., 2013,11, 2046-9578. [29] Nathan, S. The effects and sustainability of training programmers’ using Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) with different teaching style on students with varying hockey skill levels. A paper presented at 1st Asia Pacific Sport in Education Conference, Adelaide,Australia., 2008. [30] Newell, K. M. Constraints on the development of coordination, in M. G. Wade & Whiting (Eds.), Motor Development in Children. Aspects of Coordination and Control.,1986. [31] Nevett, M., Rovegno, I., Babiarz, M., & McCaughtry, N. Changes in basic tactics and motor skills in an invasion type game after a 12-lessonunit of instruction. Journal of Teaching Physical Education.,2001,20, 352-369. [32] Olvares, JS, Vilora, SG, Lopez, LM & Araujo, D. Game-based approaches’ Pedagogical Principles: Exploring task constraints in youth soccer. Journal of Human Kinetics.,2015, 46, 251-261, doi: 10.1515/hukin-2015-053. [33] Phomsoupha, M & Laffaye, G. The science of badminton Game characteristics, anthropometry, physiology, visual fitness and biomechanics. Sports Medicine., 2015, 45(4), 473-495. [34] Palanipan, V. The effect of TGfU and set instructional model towards handball game configuration among form two boys.Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris., 2017. [35] Renshaw, Chow, JY , Davids, Keith, W & Hammond. A constraints-led perspective to understanding skill acquisition and game play: a basis for integration of motor learning theory and physical education praxis? Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy., 2010, 1-40. [36] Rink, J. E. Teaching physical education for learning. (4th Ed). New York: McGraw Hill.,2002. [37] Rink, J.E., French., & Tjeerdsma. Foundation for the learning and instruction of sport and games. Journal of Teaching Physical Education., 1996., 15, 399-417. [38] Roberts, S & Fairclough. Observational analysis of student activity modes, lesson contexts and teacher interactions during games classes in high school (11-16 years) Physical Education. European Physical education Review., 2011, 17, 255-268, doi:10.1177/1356336x11420222 [39] Siedentop, D. Introduction to physical education, fitness, and sport (4th Ed). Los Angeles, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company., 2001. [40] Stenhouse, L. What counts as a research? British Journal of Education Studies., 1981,29(2), 109-110. [41] Tinning, R.. Theoretical orientations in physical education. In Kirk, D., Macdonald, D. & O’Sullivanon (ed.), The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publication.,369-385, 2006. [42] Turner, A. Teaching for understanding: Myth or reality?. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance., 1996, 67(4), 46-48. [43] Turner, A., & Martinek, T. J. An investigation into teaching games for understanding:Effects on skill, knowledge, and play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport., 1999, 70,3-21. [44] Tyler, R.W. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, The university of Chicago press., 1949.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page

Installed and configured by Bahagian Automasi, Perpustakaan Tuanku Bainun, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
If you have enquiries with this repository, kindly contact us at or Whatsapp +60163630263 (Office hours only)