| Literature DB >> 36231894 |
Tiziana D'Isanto1, Sara Aliberti2, Gaetano Altavilla1, Giovanni Esposito3, Francesca D'Elia1.
Abstract
Transversal skills are the knowledge, skills, and personal qualities that are currently needed to meet the demands of the working world and everyday life. Schools have the task of equipping students with these skills, working not only on disciplinary goals but also on operational-behavioral goals. In 2018, the European Union adopted new recommendations on eight key competencies for lifelong learning and asked schools to implement new methods to develop these recommendations. To be successful, it is necessary to stimulate students' development of these competences, which are also called soft skills, from the earliest years of the school experience. Physical education (PE) is called upon to make its contribution. In Italy, the two teaching methods used during PE classes are prescriptive teaching and heuristic learning. It is not clear which of the two methods is the most effective in improving soft skills, especially the skills involved in teamwork. The objective of this article was to compare the effects of these two teaching methods on students' teamwork skills during PE classes in primary schools. After verifying the normality of the data, a Student's t-test for dependent samples was performed to assess pre-test and post-test differences in each of two groups, while a Student's t-test for independent samples was performed to compare the two groups after 3 months. Heuristic learning proved to be the most effective method for improving teamwork skills. The results may make an important contribution to future teacher training on the most effective teaching methods for developing students' soft skills.Entities:
Keywords: PE; primary school; soft skills; teaching method; transversal skills
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231894 PMCID: PMC9566243 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912596
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Example of the activity performed using two teaching methods by the HEUR-L and PRES-T groups.
| HEUR-L Group | PRES-T Group | |
|---|---|---|
|
| After an initial brainstorming on the exercises that could be performed for a proper warm-up, the children formed a circle and alternated (one per lesson) in playing the role of coaches, offering some sequences of exercises to warm up. | The PE teacher positioned the children in a circle to perform some sequences of exercises to warm up. The children imitated what the teacher demonstrated. |
|
| The PE teacher sets up two activities of 15 min each. Two volunteer children played the role of captain; they were responsible for choosing and managing their team. | The PE teacher set up two activities of 15 min each, dividing the children into two teams and choosing two captains. |
| Game 1: basketball | Game 1: basketball | |
|
| Circle time: the children formed a circle and, in turns, explained their reflections on the content of the lessons. | Relaxing exercises were demonstrated by the PE teacher. |
Groups’ characteristics.
| HEUR-L Group | PRES-T Group | |
|---|---|---|
| Participants | Participants | |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 23 (50%) | 26 (48.1%) |
| Female | 23 (50%) | 28 (51.9%) |
| Weight | ||
| Overweight | 8 (17.4%) | 8 (14.8%) |
| Normal | 33 (71.7%) | 42 (77.8%) |
| Underweight | 5 (10.9%) | 4 (7.4%) |
| Class | ||
| Fourth (9 years old) | 24 (52.2%) | 28 (51.9%) |
| Fifth (10 years old) | 22 (47.8%) | 26 (48.1%) |
Teamwork skills values, pre-test and post-test, after 3 months.
| Entry | Exit | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HEUR-L Group | PRES-T Group | HEUR-L Group | PRES-T Group | |||||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Item 1 | 3.6522 | 1.40186 | 3.2778 | 1.27999 | 4.0435 | 0.98785 | 3.2963 | 1.22289 |
| Item 2 | 3.9565 | 1.11468 | 3.8519 | 1.13947 | 4.1957 | 0.98024 | 3.8333 | 1.09458 |
| Item 3 | 3.8696 | 0.85916 | 3.7963 | 0.95916 | 4.1739 | 0.79734 | 3.7778 | 0.94503 |
| Item 4 | 3.5435 | 1.27726 | 3.4630 | 1.28435 | 4.1957 | 0.93380 | 3.5741 | 1.19119 |
| Item 5 | 3.8696 | 1.25802 | 3.8148 | 1.28964 | 4.1739 | 0.99564 | 4.0926 | 1.01440 |
| Item 6 | 3.5217 | 1.41011 | 3.3519 | 1.45573 | 3.9348 | 1.12353 | 3.3704 | 1.37767 |
| Item 7 | 4.3043 | 0.96309 | 4.2963 | 1.10964 | 4.5870 | 0.65238 | 4.0741 | 1.17925 |
Comparison between the two groups after the educational intervention.
| Student’s | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Df | Sig. (Two Tails) | Difference in Mean | Std. Error Mean | 95% CI | ||
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Item 1 | 3.322 | 98 | 0.001 | 0.74718 | 0.22494 | 0.30079 | 1.19357 |
| Item 2 | 1.730 | 98 | 0.087 | 0.36232 | 0.20940 | −0.05323 | 0.77786 |
| Item 3 | 2.243 | 98 | 0.027 | 0.39614 | 0.17663 | 0.04563 | 0.74664 |
| Item 4 | 2.867 | 98 | 0.005 | 0.62158 | 0.21682 | 0.19130 | 1.05186 |
| Item 5 | 0.403 | 98 | 0.688 | 0.08132 | 0.20181 | −0.31917 | 0.48181 |
| Item 6 | 2.220 | 98 | 0.029 | 0.56441 | 0.25428 | 0.05981 | 1.06902 |
| Item 7 | 2.626 | 98 | 0.010 | 0.51288 | 0.19531 | 0.12530 | 0.90046 |
Improvement of teamwork skills in each group.
| Paired | HEUR-L Group | PRES-T Group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| df | Sig. (Two Tails) |
| df | Sig. (Two Tails) | |
| Item 1 | −3.564 | 45 | 0.001 | −0.444 | 53 | 0.659 |
| Item 2 | −1.974 | 45 | 0.055 | 0.256 | 53 | 0.799 |
| Item 3 | −3.288 | 45 | 0.002 | 0.375 | 53 | 0.709 |
| Item 4 | −4.354 | 45 | 0.000 | −2.574 | 53 | 0.013 |
| Item 5 | −2.047 | 45 | 0.046 | −2.171 | 53 | 0.034 |
| Item 6 | −2.737 | 45 | 0.009 | −0.207 | 53 | 0.837 |
| Item 7 | −2.227 | 45 | 0.031 | 1.766 | 53 | 0.083 |