| Literature DB >> 28231260 |
Sara Santos1, Sergio Jiménez2, Jaime Sampaio1, Nuno Leite1.
Abstract
Team Sports has been suggested as a suitable environment to investigate creative behavior. This study's purpose was two-fold: first, it intended to identify the effects of the Skills4Genius sports-bases training program in thinking, motor, and in-game creative behavior in team sports. Second, it aimed to investigate the relationship between creative thinking and in-game creativity. Forty children from primary school were allocated into control (n = 18, age: 9.2±0.4) and experimental (n = 22, age: 9.5±0.7) groups. The experimental group participated in a five-month training program involving either creative thinking, diversification, physical literacy, and nonlinear pedagogy approaches (Skills4Genius). Variables in the study included: a) creative thinking; b) motor performance (vertical jump, speed, and agility); c) in-game individual creative behavior (attempts, fluency, and versatility); and d) in-game collective behavior (positional regularity). The results suggested that the Skills4Genius program fostered creative thinking, agility, and speed performance. Moreover, it stretched the in-game individual creative behavior mainly through the improvement of the attempts and versatility of the player's actions. Lastly, it nurtured a better learning of the tactical principles, whereas the children were more coordinated with their teammates' and opponents' positioning. Additionally, this study presents a positive correlation linking creative thinking and in-game creative performance. These findings highlighted that creativity is facilitated while players become more thinking and game-skilled. Coaches and educators may apply this functional environment to inspire children's disposition to move outside the box and trigger a creative spark in team sports players. Notwithstanding, the sports environment is ideally suited for fostering creative behavior, a higher-order disposition that will go on to differentiate the everyday life of a child.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28231260 PMCID: PMC5322953 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172520
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Description of the general Skills4genius training program tenets.
| Tenets of the Skills4Genius Training Program |
|---|
| For children it is extremely important to explore without limits in several domains. Therefore, in the initial part of the training sessions, children had a book with creativity tasks. These activities were comprised of motor, figural, written, and verbal tasks that encompassed divergent and convergent abilities (i.e., creating their own dribble and technical skills; completing drawings; deciding what they can do with a specific object; writing a letter from the moon; or solving critically a problem in different ways). Creative tasks were executed in individual forms, in pairs, or in groups, depending on the program timeline. This enrichment environment may arouse the creative thinking incubation and the children’s disposition to attempt and diverse new solutions during the remaining sport session. |
| The training program encompasses the learning of three main sports: handball, football and basketball. In each week, the children practiced one of the chosen sports, except on a random day per week in which they practiced a different sport (i.e., frisbee, field hockey, volleyball, rugby, and others). At the end of training sessions, the children always played a formal game, which was intended to ensure the sport’s official rules. However, in the last three months of the enrichment program, the children often played an adapted version of Kronum game called Game4Genius. These activities allowed them to play more than one type of sport simultaneously (i.e., football mixed with handball). Also, the challenges and activities applied in the program improves technical-tactical basic elements through the incorporation of several types of balls and materials and use at the same time different parts of body to play, generating high impressibility and attentional demand. |
| In order to achieve the children’s creative potential, the training program states that physical literacy mastery is mandatory. Therefore, in all training sessions the fundamental motor skills (agility, speed, coordination, and plyometric training) are developed through circuits always embodied in representative contexts. Otherwise, the fundamental game skills are enhanced through ludic games, which encompasses the fundamental learning game principles proposed by Memmert and Harvey [ |
| The training program focused on the manipulation of constraints and game representativeness, which encourages the emergence of functional and novel movement solutions to overcome a game challenge. For that, appropriate contextual interference is necessary. To avoid children becoming overwhelmed in the earlier stages of skill acquisition and due to their lack of sports experiences, a moderate contextual interference was chosen [see |
| In fact, the training sessions implement several forms of small-sided games that promote exploratory behavior and unlock the children’s creative potential. Furthermore, simple constraints were applied, such as: using a small number of players in unbalanced formats; playing in numerical advantage or in equal number of players (i.e., 1vs1, 2vs1, 2vs2, 3vs1); reducing the playing area; and/or adding several targets. These constraints create multiple 1-on-1 duels that increase the number of ball contacts per player and their perceptual responses. Still, several moderate constraints are used, like increasing the numerical duels (3vs3), as well as playing in numerical disadvantage (2vs3 and 3vs4) and constraining the ball and type of touches to explore team-related movements. |
| During the program sessions the children had to execute several variations in technique movement (i.e., pass, shoot, or feint) to make them ready to deal with game disturbances (i.e., eyes closed, arm behind the body, arm straight up, rotate arm, do math, juggling a balloon, play with two balls, use different types and sizes of balls, and play with the non-dominant limb). This noisy environment allows children to improvise new behavioral patterns and prevent standardized actions, providing a fundamental basis for motor learning [ |
Fig 1Creativity training program schedule during different mesocycles.
Legend: mot., motor; fig.; figural: writ., written; verb., verbal; FMS, fundamental movement skills; FGS, fundamental game skills; ABCs, agility, balance, coordination and speed; TGfU, teaching games for understanding; SSG, small-sided games. A mesocycle corresponds to a month of training which includes 12 practical sessions with 60 minutes each.
Descriptive analysis and standardized (Cohen) differences in group means for the Skills4Genius program effects in thinking, motor and in-game performance between control and experimental groups.
| Variables | Control | Experimental | Difference in means: %; ± 90% CL (uncertainty in true differences) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre (mean±SD) | Post (mean±SD) | Pre (mean±SD) | Post (mean±SD) | |||
| Creative Thinking | Creative Thinking Score | 9.7±4.7 | 4.3±2.7 | 7.8±4.0 | 12.2±3.9 | 235.0; ±131.8 (most likely ↑) |
| Fluency | 21.7±5.6 | 24.1±9.6 | 22.8±8.2 | 26.8±7.1 | 13.1; ±24.7 (unclear) | |
| Elaboration | 8.2±3.0 | 5.7±2.0 | 7.5±2.8 | 8.9±3.4 | 66.3; ±40.7 (most likely ↑) | |
| Originality | 10.4±4.2 | 11.7±4.7 | 10.4±4.8 | 18.2±7.8 | 69.4; ±50.4 (very likely ↑) | |
| Closure | 11.8±3.0 | 9.4±4.4 | 12.0±4.2 | 15.0±4.1 | 53.7; ±46.4 (very likely ↑) | |
| Titles | 4.2±3.7 | 3.4±5.1 | 4.7±4.3 | 11.5±5.6 | 389.0; ±324.6 (most likely ↑) | |
| Motor | Free countermovement jump | 18.4±4.8 | 19.8±4.9 | 24.3±5.6 | 25.5±3.8 | -1.3; ±6.8 (likely trivial↓) |
| Speed | 3.3±0.2 | 3.2±0.2 | 3.1±0.2 | 3.0±0.3 | -4.1; ±2.9 (likely ↓) | |
| Agility | 8.9±0.6 | 9.5±0.9 | 8.4±0.8 | 7.4±0.8 | -17.7; ±3.9 (most likely ↓) | |
| In-game individual | Creative Game Score | 9.0±4.5 | 11.1±4.5 | 14.1±9.0 | 26.1±11.9 | 62.0; ±50.9 (very likely ↑) |
| Game Attempts | 0.8±0.5 | 0.9±0.5 | 1.1±0.6 | 4.8±2.7 | 359.7; ±299.9 (most likely ↑) | |
| Game Fluency | 19.8±14.6 | 24.9±16.2 | 39.5±27.4 | 69.9±36.4 | 53.7; ±75.2 (likely ↑) | |
| Game Versatility | 6.2±3.0 | 7.5±6.3 | 1.4±0.6 | 3.3±1.6 | 182.3; ±220.1 (very likely ↑) | |
| In-game collective | Distance to Team Centroid | 0.49±0.1 | 0.60±0.1 | 0.68±0.1 | 0.62±0.1 | -25.1; ±11.0 (very likely ↓) |
| Distance to Opponent Team Centroid | 0.75±0.1 | 0.82±0.1 | 0.91±0.1 | 0.87±0.1 | -12.3; ±7.7 (very likely ↓) | |
Note: CL = confidence limits. ↑ = increase; ↓ = decrease.
Fig 2Standardized (Cohen) differences in thinking, motor, in-game individual and in-game collective variables between pre-post test variations.
The (+) and (-) symbols represents if the considered variable increase/decrease from pre- to post-test. The blue area represents trivial differences.
Inferential statistics of thinking and game pre-post variation and the coefficient correlation between pre-pre and pre-post of the control and experimental groups.
| Variables | Control | Experimental | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Δ% (pre-post) | r; ±90% CL pre thinking-pre game (inference) | r; ±90% CL post thinking-post game (inference) | Δ% (pre-post) | r; ±90% CL pre thinking-pre game (inference) | r; ±90% CL post thinking-post game (inference) | |
| Thinking Score | -50.3% | 0.91; ±0.08 (most likely positive) | 0.45; ±0.33 (likely positive) | 66.6% | 0.94; ±0.05 (most likely positive) | 0.62; ±0.23 (most likely positive) |
| Game Score | 27.4% | 106.5% | ||||
Note: CL = Confidence limits. A correlation ≥ 0.70 represents a very strong positive relationship; 0.69 to 0.40 indicates a strong positive relationship.