Systematic Review of Sport Coaches’ and Teachers’ Perceptions and Application of Game-Based and Constraints-Led Pedagogy: A Qualitative Meta-Study

IF 1.6 3区教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Quest Pub Date : 2023-10-13 DOI:10.1080/00336297.2023.2257343

S. J. Richardson, A. P. McRobert, D. Vinson, C. J. Cronin, C. Lee, S. J. Roberts

{"title":"Systematic Review of Sport Coaches’ and Teachers’ Perceptions and Application of Game-Based and Constraints-Led Pedagogy: A Qualitative Meta-Study","authors":"S. J. Richardson, A. P. McRobert, D. Vinson, C. J. Cronin, C. Lee, S. J. Roberts","doi":"10.1080/00336297.2023.2257343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study represents the first comprehensive qualitative systematic review on sport coaches’ and teachers’ perceptions and application of Game-Based Approaches (GBA) and Constraints-Led Approach (CLA). From searching 12 electronic academic databases from 1982 to 2020, 29 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-study. Data revealed studies were conducted in several different countries, and case study design was the predominant methodology. The main data collection method reported was cross-sectional interviews. There were inconsistencies in the quality of reporting methodologies, sampling procedures, data analysis, and assessing quality. The meta-theory analysis identified weaknesses in the methodological and conceptual approaches, and a low number of studies stated philosophical perspectives. The meta-synthesis identified assumptions about learning, pedagogical knowledge and skills, content knowledge, and support as the overarching themes reported to impact coaches’ and teachers’ perceptions and application of GBAs and CLA. Finally, some recommendations for future research and practice are provided.","PeriodicalId":49642,"journal":{"name":"Quest","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2023.2257343","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study represents the first comprehensive qualitative systematic review on sport coaches’ and teachers’ perceptions and application of Game-Based Approaches (GBA) and Constraints-Led Approach (CLA). From searching 12 electronic academic databases from 1982 to 2020, 29 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-study. Data revealed studies were conducted in several different countries, and case study design was the predominant methodology. The main data collection method reported was cross-sectional interviews. There were inconsistencies in the quality of reporting methodologies, sampling procedures, data analysis, and assessing quality. The meta-theory analysis identified weaknesses in the methodological and conceptual approaches, and a low number of studies stated philosophical perspectives. The meta-synthesis identified assumptions about learning, pedagogical knowledge and skills, content knowledge, and support as the overarching themes reported to impact coaches’ and teachers’ perceptions and application of GBAs and CLA. Finally, some recommendations for future research and practice are provided.

查看原文本刊更多论文

体育教练员和教师对基于游戏和约束的教学法的认知和应用的系统回顾:一项定性元研究

本研究首次对体育教练员和教师对基于游戏的方法(GBA)和约束导向方法(CLA)的认知和应用进行了全面的定性系统评价。通过对1982年至2020年12个电子学术数据库的检索，有29项研究符合入选标准，被纳入元研究。数据显示，研究在几个不同的国家进行，案例研究设计是主要的方法。报告的主要数据收集方法是横断面访谈。在报告方法、抽样程序、数据分析和评估质量方面存在不一致。元理论分析发现了方法论和概念方法的弱点，并且很少有研究从哲学的角度来阐述。元综合确定了关于学习、教学知识和技能、内容知识和支持的假设，作为影响教练和教师对GBAs和CLA的看法和应用的首要主题。最后，对今后的研究和实践提出了建议。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Quest 社会科学-运动科学

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

14.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Quest is the official journal of the National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education (NAKHE). It is the leading journal for interdisciplinary scholarship for professionals in kinesiology in higher education. Quest provides a public forum for scholarship, creative thought, and research relevant to a broad range of interests held by faculty and leaders in higher education today. Quest publishes: 1) manuscripts that address issues and concerns relevant and meaningful to the field of kinesiology; 2) original research reports that address empirical questions that are contextualized within higher education and hold significance to a broad range of faculty and administrators in kinesiology; and 3) reviews of literature and/or research of interest to one or more sub-disciplines in kinesiology. Quest does not publish papers focused on sport (e.g., amateur, collegiate, professional) that are contextualized outside of kinesiology in higher education.