The significative negative events during initial teacher training: the case of Physical Education

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The numeric tools are regularly used at school and some exergames (i.e.: active video games) might be useful during physical education (PE) courses to increase the situational interest (Roure, Pasco, Benoît, & Deldicque, 2020) and/or the rate of physical activity (Gao et al., 2017) in students. However, the possible influence of such exergames on learning remained to be studied. Furthermore, some exergames involve mathematical contents while it has been suggested that mathematics and PE might elicit interdisciplinary teaching (Nilges & Usnick, 2000). The present study thus aimed to explore the possible influence of a design-based exergame on the learning of a mathematical task and a motor task. Methods: 216 Students (11.06±.74 years) were distributed in two groups, and each was engaged in an interdisciplinarity 6-lessons sequence including mathematics and PE contents. During the lessons, the experimental group systematically used the exergame platform Lü® to play video games leading to determine a series of bipolar coordinates and to throw a ball towards each determined coordinate. The control group was also trained to determine such coordinates and to through a ball on a target but did not use any numeric system. During the sequences (lessons 3 and 5), the scores of situational interest (SI) and moderate-to-vigorous activity (MPVA) were measured. At the beginning and at the end of the sequences (lessons 1 and 6), the efficacy to determine bipolar coordinates (DC) and to throw a ball to reach a target (TT) were also measured. Results: Multivariate analysis of variance showed: (a.) no statistically significant difference in SI scores between the experimental group and the control group at the two measurement times (p < .05), and (b.) a higher MPVA score in the control group (vs the experimental group), at lesson 3 (F = 25.82, p < .01) but no difference between the MPVA scores of the two groups at lesson 5 (F = 1.10, p = .29). Furthermore, multivariate analysis of covariance showed that the DC scores (F = 6.65, p = .01) and TT scores (F = 4.46, p = .02) were better in the experimental group than in the control group, after the learning session. Discussion/Conclusion: The better DC and TT scores observed in the experimental group might be due to didactical benefits specific to the numerical platform used by this group, but not by the control group (Benzing & Schmidt, 2018), as the two groups did not show clear-cut differences in SI and MPVA scores. Such benefits might be linked to elements related to the used exergames such as: a systematic and accurate attribution of the knowledge of the results, important parametrized repetitions with frequent attentional stimulation and, possibly, the direct link induced between each determined coordinate and the subsequent target to be reached by throwing.