Previous research has compared the two different models of TGfU and the technical model in hockey (Turner & Martinek, 1999). This study not only focused on hockey but also aimed to compare the effects of emphasizing two different teaching styles incorporated into the TGfU approach. As Metzler (2005) pointed out, separating teaching styles from instructional models is sometimes difficult, and the TGfU model can be value added by emphasizing particular teaching styles within it. The quasi-experimental study in this article examined the effectiveness of two different pedagogical styles, Style E Tactical (SET) and Style H Tactical (SHT), that combined teaching styles with the TGfU model for improving speed and accuracy in the execution of general hockey skills, declarative and procedural knowledge, ball control, decision making, and skill execution in three-on-three game play. Samples (n = 150, 13-yearold lower secondary school boys) were divided equally into groups of highskilled boys (HSB), medium-skilled boys (MSB), and low-skilled boys (LSB). The findings indicate that both teaching styles were effective for all skill groups in improving speed and accuracy of skill execution, declarative knowledge, ball control, and decision making in three-on-three hockey games. However, based on mean score, SET is more effective in improving speed (especially for HSB and LSB) and accuracy (HSB, MSB and LSB) in executing hockey skills. SHT was very effective in improving declarative knowledge as well as ball control and decision making in three-on-three games for almost all skill groups, but further work needs to be done to validate the effectiveness of these two teaching styles.
© Copyright 2012 Asian Journal of Exercise & Sports Science. Sagamore Publishing. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.