Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • Author: Farid Bardid x
  • Physical Education and Coaching x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Open access

Affective Learning in Physical Education: A Systematic Review

Eishin Teraoka, Heidi Jancer Ferreira, David Kirk, and Farid Bardid

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to carry out a systematic review of intervention programs that have addressed affective learning outcomes within physical education and to explore pedagogical practices in alignment with teaching, lesson content, and learning outcomes. Method: The literature search was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Included were 26 peer-reviewed pedagogical studies of physical education programs that addressed affective outcomes and reported fidelity of implementation. Results and Discussion: Affective outcomes were grouped into four themes: motivation, emotional responses, self-concept, and resilience. The findings showed that offering choice, encouraging peer feedback, asking deductive questions, focusing on personal improvement, and differentiating are effective teaching strategies that were widely used to support affective learning in children and adolescents. This review highlights the importance of fidelity of implementation to understand how intervention programs are delivered.

Restricted access

Convergent and Divergent Validity Between the KTK and MOT 4-6 Motor Tests in Early Childhood

Farid Bardid, Floris Huyben, Frederik J.A. Deconinck, Kristine De Martelaer, Jan Seghers, and Matthieu Lenoir

The aim of this study was to investigate the convergent and divergent validity between the Body Coordination Test for Children (KTK) and the Motor Proficiency Test for 4- to 6-Year-Old Children (MOT 4-6). A total of 638 children (5–6 yr old) took part in the study. The results showed a moderately positive association between the total scores of both tests (r s = .63). Moreover, the KTK total score correlated more highly with the MOT 4-6 gross motor score than with the MOT 4-6 fine motor score (r s = .62 vs. .32). Levels of agreement were moderate when identifying children with moderate or severe motor problems and low at best when detecting children with higher motor-competence levels. This study provides evidence of convergent and divergent validity between the KTK and MOT 4-6. However, given the moderate to low levels of agreement, either measurement may lead to possible categorization errors. Therefore, it is recommended that children’s motor competence not be judged based on the result of a single test.