PL EN


2012 | 1 | 1 | 43-52
Article title

Good Practice Methods in Physical Education – Cooperative Learning

Content
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
During the winter semester 2008/09, the Institute of Sports Science at the Goethe University in Frankfurt (Germany), conducted and evaluated a seminar for sports students called „Good Practice in Physical Education“. This novel teaching format was designed to link didactical skill-acquisition, in terms of situated learning, to the acquisition of theoretical knowledge, which should enhance the professional core competences of future PE teachers. In addition, this pilot seminar was designed to evaluate the usefulness of a blended learning teaching approach, i.e. online learning combined with face-to-face learning, compared to a conventional attendance format. In both the seminar formats students worked together in constant small groups (3-4 persons). The learning results and related variables were assessed using a variety of tests, questionnaires and interviews. The blended-learning-groups (a total of 70 students) had 4 attendance and 9 online sessions, whereas the attendance groups (60 students) had 14 attendance sessions only. In order to make the learning progress between the groups comparable, at the beginning of the seminar the students were allocated as to the results of a baseline test assessing their knowledge about PE. The same test was conducted afterwards to measure the gain in knowledge with regard to the content of the lectures. The ability to transfer the acquired content-knowledge into PE practice (learning transfer) was assessed by means of a poster presentation, which had to be prepared by each student group during the final phase of the seminar. In addition to the performance tests, data concerning the following variables were collected: learning environment, learning style, learning motivation, team competences. Furthermore, group interviews were carried out and videotaped, in order to analyze the effects of team work on learning performance. At present, the following results were obtained: - The students of the blended-learning-seminar gained significantly more content-knowledge than the students of the attendance seminar (p < .01). - This finding is consistent with a significantly higher appreciation of the learning environment by the blended-learning-groups (p < .01). - However, no significant difference in the learning transfer could be found.
Keywords
Year
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
43-52
Physical description
Dates
published
2012
Contributors
author
author
  • Frankfurt University, Institute of Sports Sciences, Germany
References
  • 1. Bähr I. (2005). Kooperatives Lernen im Sportunterricht. „Sportpädagogik“, 29, 4–9.
  • 2. Bähr I., Prohl R., Gröben B. (2008). Prozesse und Effekte kooperativen Lernens im Sportunterricht. „Unterrichtswissenschaft“, 36, 4, 290–308.
  • 3. Beckers E. (2003). Das Unbehagen an den neuen Richtlinien und Lehrplänen – oder: Zur schleichenden Restauration des Alten. In: E. Franke, E. Bannmüller (Eds.), Ästhetische Bildung (p. 154–168). Hamburg, Czwalina.
  • 4. Brettschneider W.-D., Naul R. (2004). Study on young people’s lifestyles and sedentariness and the role of sport in the context of education and as a means of restoring the balance. Paderborn, Institut für Sportwissenschaft.
  • 5. Brettschneider W.-D., Naul R., Bünemann A., Hoffmann D. (2006). Übergewicht und Adipositas bei Kinder und Jugendlichen. Ernährungsverhalten, Medienkonsum und körperliche (In-)Aktivität im europäischen Vergleich. „Spectrum der Sportwissenschaften“, 18 (2), 25–45.
  • 6. Gröben B. (2005). Wirkungen des Kooperativen Lernens im Spiegel der Unterrichtsforschung. „Sportpädagogik”, 29, 48–52.
  • 7. HKM (2005). Lehrplan Sport, Gymnasialer Bildungsgang. Jahrgangsstufen 5G bis 12G. Wiesbaden.
  • 8. Hessisches Kultusministerium [HKM] (o.J. a). Lehrplan Sport für die Mittelstufe. Wiesbaden.
  • 9. Hessisches Kultusministerium [HKM] (o.J. b). Lehrplan Sport, Gymnasialer Bildungsgang. Jahrgangsstufen 11 bis 13. Wiesbaden.
  • 10. Klaes L., Cosler D., Rommel A., Zens Y.C.K. (2003). WIAD-AOK-DSB-Studie II. Bewegungsstatus von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland. Frankfurt/M., DSB.
  • 11. Klaes L., Rommel A., Cosler D., Zens Y.C.K. (2000). Bewegungsstatus von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland. Forschungsbericht im Auftrag des Deutschen Sportbundes und des AOK Bundesverbandes. Bonn, WIAD.
  • 12. Kurz D. (2008). Der Auftrag des Schulsports. „Sportunterricht“ 57, 7, 211–218.
  • 13. Neuweg G.H. (2005). Emergenzbedingungen pädagogischer Könnerschaft. In: H. Heid, C. Harteis (Eds.), Verwertbarkeit. Ein Qualitätskriterium (erziehungs-)wissenschaftlichen Wissens? (pp. 205–228). Wiesbaden.
  • 14. Prohl R. (2004). Vermittlungsmethoden – eine erziehungswissenschaftliche Lücke in der Bildungstheorie des Sportunterrichts. In: M. Schierz, P. Frei (Eds.), Sportpädagogisches Wissen (pp. 117–126). Hamburg, Czwalina.
  • 15. Prohl R. (2006). Grundriss der Sportpädagogik (2. Aufl.). Wiebelsheim, Limpert.
  • 16. Prohl R., Krick F. (2005). Lehrplan und Lehrplanentwicklung – Programmatische Grundlagen des Schulsports. In: DSJ (Ed.), DSB-SPRINT-Studie. Eine Untersuchung zur Situation des Schulsports in Deutschland (pp. 11–44). Aachen, Meyer & Meyer.
  • 17. Schön D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-12c6014b-2999-4b50-9224-39117495e5da
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.