‘How does TGfU work?’: examining the relationship between learning design in TGfU and a nonlinear pedagogy
By C. W. K. Tan, Jia Yi Chow, Keith Davids. 2012
154 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation, Social Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ab069b355905a2fc5331c70d3e4c51a8d037e561
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Developmental and Educational Psychology
In Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
In Social Psychology
Citations in the corpus
- Nonlinear Learning Underpinning Pedagogy: Evidence, Challenges, and Implications (2013, methodology): “…on an information-processing perspective that focuses on the construction of knowledge by the learner without accounting for important dynamic environmental-performer interactions, has dominated and supported most pedagogical practices in learning settings (Chow et al., 2007; Tan et al., 2012).”
- The impact of nonlinear pedagogy on physical education teacher education students’ intrinsic motivation (2016, background): “…of each learner’s unique individual constraints (e.g. speed), and those of the task (e.g. competition rules) and performance environment (e.g. running surface) (for a more detailed overview see Newell 1986; Davids, Chow, and Shuttleworth 2005; Chow et al. 2007, 2013; Tan, Chow, and Davids 2012).”
- Why the Constraints-Led Approach is not Teaching Games for Understanding: a clarification (2016, background): “…for TGfU and highlights the need for research to go beyond the dualist perspective to understand and examine the learning processes underlying TGfU (Chow et al. 2007b; Tan et al. 2011) to clarify the conflicting claims made on behalf of TGfU (Rink, French, and Tjeerdsma 1996; Stolz and Pill 2014).”