51 JPJO 6 (1) (2021) 51-58 Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga Available online at: https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/article/view/6-1-07 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jpjo.v6i1.31610 Basketball Skill Achievements: Comparison between Technical Approach and Tactical Approach based on Physical Fitness Level Lutfi Nur 1 *, Arief Abdul Malik 2 1 Program Studi PGSD Kampus Tasikmalaya , Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia 2 Program Studi Pendidikan Jasmani , Universitas Siliwangi, Indonesia Article Info Article History : Received January 2021 Revised January 2021 Accepted March 2021 Available online April 2021 Keywords : basketball skill, physical fitness, tactical approach, technical approach Abstract Learning approaches, such as tactical approach and technical approach, have been widely discussed for promoting physical activity in Physical Education learning. The application of a suitable learning approach becomes an important issue due to the dif- ferent fitness level of individual. The purpose of this study was to investigate the bas- ketball skill learning outcome by applying the learning approaches based on the physi- cal fitness level of adolescent students. A 2 x 2 factorial design (ANOVA) was ap- plied. Forty junior high school male students were involved in this study. They were divided into 4 groups, including 2 high physical fitness groups and 2 low physical fit- ness groups by applying the tactical approach and technical approach. This study used the Indonesian Physical Fitness Test (TKJI) instrument for the Junior High School level and basketball skill test instruments, including passing, shooting, and dribbling tests. The results showed that, overall, students who received the tactical approach were better than students who received the technical approach. In the high physical fitness student group, the tactical learning approach showed a significant impact com- pared to the technical approach. However, in the students with low physical fitness group, the technical approach had a better effect on the students' basketball skills. It concludes that the two learning approaches are proven to be able to improve the bas- ketball skill learning outcomes. For that reason, it is recommended to teach basketball skills using a tactical approach to students with good physical fitness. However, if the students have low physical fitness, it is suggested that technical learning approaches is given.  Correspondence Address : Jl. Dadaha No. 18 Kota Tasikmalaya, Indonesia E-mail : lutfinur@upi.edu https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index 52 INTRODUCTION Physical Education learning in schools, especially Junior High School students, is dominated by move- ment activities, both individual games and team games, which are usually modified by the teacher to encourage the student understanding, attitudes, and movement skills. (Haris & Ghazali, 2020). Furthermore, previous research revealed that a common obstacle found by teachers during Physical Education learning activities was that students did not take an active role in activi- ties, or activities mostly determined by the teacher, due to fear or did not fit in with the group, thus they kept quiet and did other preferred activities (Haris & Ghaz- ali, 2020). Therefore, the teacher's ability in understand- ing the students and determining the right learning ap- proach are essential. In choosing a learning approach, some Physical Education teachers emphasized that students must be proficient in certain skills before they acquire compe- tences in a game (Ennis, 2011). As the result, many Physical Education teachers only focus on traditional methodologies for teaching skill developments without teaching how to play the game (D. Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000; Fernandez-Rio, Méndez-Giménez, & Méndez Alonso, 2017). The implementation of the technical approach prioritizes technical skill learning or basic movement and technical trainings in the field sep- arately (Priklerová & Kucharik, 2015), thus the students pay less attention to the understanding of its implemen- tion in the real game (Kirk & Macphail, 2002). It will certainly have an impact on student learning outcomes in understanding and practicing movements in a game. It should be remembered that each student has different characteristics, such as in understanding movement pat- terns, physical conditions, and so on, so that it requires a teacher to be able to adapt the learning approach to the characteristics of the students. One of the challenges of implementing the tech- nical approach is that teachers need a relatively longer time to teach or repeat basic techniques using the drill method. Therefore, it seems that this approach tends to be boring and monotonous, which results in the low enthusiasm of students in participating in the learning process. In addition, when a learning is carried out by providing a basic technique training separated from the playing concept, students will be difficult to implement the connection between the basic techniques they have learned and mastered and the system of playing as a whole. The results of previous research revealed that the teacher-centered learning approach had a disad- vantage related to the student involvement due to lim- ited responsibilities, where the students would eventual- ly get bored with physical exercises and basic tech- niques which were carried out continuously, especially for students who could not play sports or games effec- tively (Himberg, Hutchinson, & Roussell, 2003; D. Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000). The technical approach is the most widely used learning method in sport lessons (Fernandez-Rio, Mén- dez-Giménez, & Méndez Alonso, 2017) because this method focuses on content or skill developments and teacher-centered decisions (Metzler, 2000). It is espe- cially useful for improving the basic techniques of an athlete as well as the skills of students who require a special learning (Corbett dkk., 2018; Nishimura, Miya- zaki, Kinomura, & Kizuka, 2021). However, the tech- nical approach has received a criticism which states that teaching basic technical skills before individuals under- stand its relationship to the actual game situation in the real field will only eliminate the essence of the game itself. (Kirk & Macphail, 2002, Gréhaigne, Griffin, & Richard, 2005). Therefore, the concept of learning ap- proach through a game is considered suitable to over- come the weakness of the technical approach; gradual- ly, the concept of learning approach through a game spreads throughout the world known with different names, such as the Tactical Game Approach (Griffin et al., 1997), Play Practice (Launder, 2001), Concept Ap- proach (Wright, McNeill, Fry, & Wang, 2005), Tactical Decision Learning Model (Gréhaigne, Griffin, & Rich- ard, 2005), and so on. The concept of learning approach through games, or originally known as Teaching Games for Under- standing (TGfU), was discovered by Rod Thorpe, Da- vid Bunker and Len Almond and introduced to the pub- lic in 1982 by introducing 6 phases of the game ap- proach, namely: game, game appreciation, tactical awareness, decision making, skill execution, and game performance. This approach is beneficial to promote the tactical knowledge about the concept of playing and the development of skills required in the game; hence, by understanding the concept of playing that has been mas- tered, the students are expected to be able to apply and combine the appropriate basic techniques in a game Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Lutfi Nur & Arief Abdul Malik / Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (1) (2021) 53 (Chatzipanteli, Digelidis, Karatzoglidis, & Dean, 2014; Harvey, Cushion, Wegis, & Massa-Gonzalez, 2010; Kirk & Macphail, 2002). In the learning process at school, besides the use of the learning approach, the student physical fitness is also a factor that should be considered by a teacher, because the true purpose of Physical Education in school is to encourage students to have a good fitness (Erfle & Gamble, 2015; Rexen et al., 2015). Physical fitness is an individual health status related to the indi- vidual's ability to carry out an activity without exces- sive fatigue, thus, by having a good physical fitness, a person can carry out the activities properly and gain a better physical growth (Ferrans, Zerwic, Wilbur, & Lar- son, 2005). Previous research states that the level of individual physical fitness has a strong correlation with the increased performance in sports and motor skills (Ortega et al., 2015). Therefore, teachers should pay attention to the student physical fitness so that they can choose a suitable and accurate learning approach. Basketball game learning is one of the sport games taught in Junior High Schools. In the Physical Educa- tion curriculum, besides improving the student physical fitness and movement skills, Physical Education learn- ing also has a function to build a discipline attitude, sportive attitude, and so on, as well as train the student cognition in understanding the material so that students gain a comprehensive understanding and benefits. (Suherman, 2018). To conduct an effective learning process, the teacher needs to choose the right learning approach so that the learning objectives and learning activities could run as expected and effectively. The efficacy of learning activities is characterized by stu- dents who actively learn, accompanied by the teacher, so that the learning activities remain at the level of the student ability and development (Rink, 2013). Regarding the technical approach and tactical ap- proach, previous research stated that the measurement results using the System for Observing Fitness Instruc- tion Time (SOFIT) show that the student physical activ- ity was in the moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) category and vigorous physical activity (VPA) category and was significantly higher in the tactical game model (TGM) classes compared to classes receiv- ing a Direct Instruction (DI). It suggests that the shift of DI to TGM, where the main aspect is the participation in modified games, gives students the opportunity to achieve the current physical activity, which is shown by the less time spent for managing the class and more time for the skill practice and game play (Harvey, Smith, Fairclough, Savory, & Kerr, 2015). Furthermore, Priklerová & Kucharik (2015), in their research, re- vealed that tactical and technical learning approaches were equally effective in teaching game skills, but tacti- cal learning approach, compared to technical learning approach, provided students with joy and fun, eliminat- ed boredom in monotonous game skill trainings, and taught the principles of fair play and tactical skill think- ing as an integral part of game performances. Technical approach and tactical approach have their own advantages and disadvantages in Physical Education learning. Therefore, in this study, the re- searchers were interested in investigating and compar- ing the two learning approaches in adolescent students with high level of physical fitness and low level of physical fitness. The researchers intended to investigate the effectiveness of technical and tactical learning ap- proaches in students with high and low physical fitness levels on basketball playing skill learning outcomes. METHODS Experimental research with factorial design (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012) was applied to in- vestigate the effectiveness of the effect of the learning approaches and the physical fitness levels of adolescent students on the basketball skill learning outcomes. Participants Participants of the study were 40 male junior high school students in grade 8 from Sukabumi Regency, West Java, Indonesia with Sundanese ethnicity. Stu- dents were divided into four experimental groups, con- sisting of 10 students for each group. Materials and Apparatus Researchers used two research instruments to ob- tain data in this study. The first instrument was the In- donesian Physical Fitness Test (TKJI) for Junior High School students consisting of five test items, including 50m sprint, 60 second body lift for men, 60 seconds of sitting, straight jumping, and 1000-meter run (Nurhasan, 2014). The second test instrument was a Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Lutfi Nur & Arief Abdul Malik / Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (1) (2021) 54 basketball skill test consisting of three tests, namely the passing test, shooting test, and dribbling test with a va- lidity r level of 0.89 (Nurhasan, 2014). Procedures First, 65 students were tested using the Indonesian Physical Fitness Test (TKJI) for Junior High School students. Then, the researchers grouped the participants according to their physical fitness level by selecting 27% of the students who got the highest physical fitness results score and 27% of the students who got the low- est physical fitness results. Therefore, 20 students with high physical fitness level and 20 students with low physical fitness level were found. Then, the researchers divided 20 students with high physical fitness level ran- domly into 2 groups to receive learning through tech- nical and tactical approaches. The same procedure was conducted to the 20 students with low physical fitness level. They were randomly divided into 10 students per group to receive technical and tactical learning ap- proaches. The next steps were 1) the four groups took the initial basketball skill test, 2) received the treatment in basketball learning, and 3) after the specified time, a final basketball skill test was carried out. Data Analysis The data analysis was carried out to determine the meaning of the obtained data. The calculation of data analysis was conducted by calculating the mean value and standard deviation. Then, the normality and homo- geneity tests were performed using the Lilliefors test and the Bartlett test. Furthermore, the hypothesis testing was carried out using the factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique with a significance level of α = 0.05. If there was an interaction, it would be followed by the Tukey Test. RESULT This study was aimed at investigating the effect of tactical approach and technical approach on the basket- ball skill learning outcomes of students having high physical fitness and low physical fitness in Junior High School level. Table 1 presents that the mean value of tactical learning is 20.40 ± 4.25 for students with high physical fitness category and 12.70 ± 2.58 for students with low physical fitness category. Meanwhile, the mean score of technical learning group is 9.70 ± 2.87 for students with high physical fitness category and 18.50 ± 1.90 for stu- dents with low physical fitness category. Furthermore, the results of basketball skills of students with high and low physical fitness levels receiving learning through the technical and tactical learning approaches can be seen in the ANOVA test results shown in Table 2. Table 2 shows the results of the Two Path Factori- al ANOVA regarding the difference of the effect of the application of the tactical approach and the technical approach on the student basketball skill learning out- comes. It found that there were differences between the treatment learning approaches. The Fh value was 6.57, which was greater than the Ft value (4.11) with the lev- el of significance 0.05. It means that there was a signifi- cant difference in the basketball skill learning outcomes of students who received a tactical approach and stu- dents who received a technical approach. Furthermore, the analysis result of the interactions that occurred be- tween the research groups applying the tactical and technical approaches, with high and low physical fit- ness levels in the basketball skill learning, shows that the Fh value was 74.47, which is greater than the Ft value (4.11.) with a significance level of 0.05. It means that, there was a significant interaction between the re- search groups, that applied tactical and technical ap- proaches with high and low physical fitness levels, and the basketball skill learning outcomes. The overview of the interactions between the study groups is shown in Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Lutfi Nur & Arief Abdul Malik / Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (1) (2021) Table 1. Summary of Student Basketball Skill Learning Outcomes Physical Fitness Category Method Tactical Approach Technical Approach Mean SD Mean SD High Physical Fitness 20.40 4.25 9.70 2.87 Low Physical Fitness 12.70 2.58 18.50 1.90 Total 16.55 3.42 14.1 2.39 Table 2. Summary of Two-Way Factorial ANOVA Results Variance Sources Fh Ft Description Tactical Approach 6.57 4.11 Significant Technical Approach 0.33 4.11 - Interaction 74.47 4.11 Significant 55 Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the interaction that occurred be- tween the research groups applying tactical and tech- nical approaches with high and low levels of physical fitness and the basketball skill learning outcomes. The application of the tactical approach to students with a high physical fitness level had a higher result compared to students with low physical fitness levels. On the oth- er hand, the use of technical approach in basketball skill learning gave a better outcome in students with a low physical fitness level group than in the students with a high physical fitness level group. To find out the differ- ence, further analysis was carried out using the Tukey test. The result is shown in Table 3. The Tukey test results, as shown in Table 3, show that there was a significant difference in the high physi- cal fitness group applying tactical and technical ap- proaches. The obtained Qo value was 11.76, greater than Qt (3.15). It indicates that the tactical approach had a more significant impact on the basketball skill learning outcomes compared to the technical approach. Meanwhile, in the low physical fitness group, the Qo value was 6.37, greater than Qt (3.15). The finding indi- cates that there was a significant difference between the two groups and the technical approach was better than the tactical approach for the low physical fitness group. DISCUSSION In this study, the tactical approach and technical approach had a significant impact on the basketball skill learning outcomes. However, in general, the tactical approach was superior to the technical approach. Re- searchers found that, when students learned through the tactical approach, they had a higher enthusiasm for learning and were enthusiastic when doing fun game activities. They gained an understanding of playing tac- tics so that they felt as if they were in a real match. This is in line with the findings of previous research stating that the application of the tactical approach can encour- age student to be actively involved in sports activities; besides, it can also promote the development of tactical knowledge and required movement skills in a game. (Smith et al., 2015). Through the tactical approach, bas- ketball learning activities were organized into fun activ- ities providing various games for enhancing the student playing understanding so that the students were more enthusiastic or motivated in carrying out their learning, which had an impact on the effectiveness of the learn- ing. The results of previous research revealed that the tactical learning approach aimed to combine tactical awareness and movement skills to improve students' game performances directed through understanding playing pattern learning, which indirectly made the learning atmosphere more interesting and encouraged students to be actively involved in the learning process (Priklerová & Kucharik, 2015). In the application of technical learning, researchers found that students tended to get tired quickly and felt bored with monotonous learning situations so that stu- dents were not enthusiastic in participating in learning and lack of concentration and motivation to develop their abilities in playing basketball skills. During the learning process, which mostly contained drill exercis- es, students often asked the teacher "when will we begin to play?" as if they were impatient to play the game. This is in line with the previous study that re- vealed that learning through games was more fun for Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Lutfi Nur & Arief Abdul Malik / Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (1) (2021) Figure 1. Interaction between The Research Group Table 3. Summary of the Tukey Test Result Compared Group Qo Qt Description High Physical Fitness Tactical VS Tecnical 11.76 3.15 Significant Low Physical Fitness Tactical VS Tecnical 6.37 3.15 Significant 56 students than technically oriented training or drill train- ing where the students often asked "when are we going to play the game?" (Jones, Marshall, & Peters, 2010). The concept of the technical approach itself tends to emphasize on basic technics mastery, which are carried out separately and repeatedly until the teachers consider it sufficient and the students have mastered it, before playing the game; thus, it has its own challenges in the learning process because the repetitive process of movement, which is conducted too often, has a poten- tial to bring out boredom in students (Quay & Peters, 2008). Another finding from this study is the interaction between tactical and technical approaches and the phys- ical fitness levels on the basketball skill learning out- comes. The relationship between the learning approach and physical fitness is highly possible, because physical fitness is required in carrying out physical activities and exercises, including in the Physical Education learning process. Therefore, students who have good physical fitness will have needed requirements, such as endur- ance, strength, ability to move, and others, that will support the quality of students in participating in the learning process or exercises, which ultimately have an impact on a more optimal basketball skill learning out- come achievement compared to students with the low physical fitness level (Grissom, 2005). Thus, the learn- ing approach and physical fitness are two interrelated and contributive aspects of a Physical Education learn- ing process, such as playing basketball in school (Brooker, Kirk, Braiuka, & Bransgrove, 2000; Cleary, Zimmerman, & Keating, 2006). Further findings show that the application of the tactical approach on the students with high physical fitness group had a more significant impact than the basketball skill learning outcomes of the group that ap- plied the technical learning approach. Regarding bas- ketball skills, the application of a tactical approach is useful for encouraging students to understand and solve tactical problems in a game by applying and combining several technical skills in real game situations. Strengthening the research findings, the results of previ- ous research on various sports revealed that providing a tactical approach was proven to be more effective than providing a technical approach in various learning games, such as ice hockey (Alison & Thorpe, 1997), football (Psotta & Martin, 2011), mini handball (Priklerová & Kucharik, 2015), and so on. In contrast, in the students with a low physical fitness level group, the provision of the technical ap- proach had a more significant effect compared to the tactical approach on the basketball skill learning out- comes. In this study, when students who have a low physical fitness level received the tactical learning ap- proach, the game pattern learning cannot run optimally. In addition, students felt tired quickly and were more silent or only did a little movement because the game activity was draining. Thus, it was hard for them to con- centrate when the explanation of the tactics was given. Previous research revealed that game-based training and technical instruction training had their own ad- vantages and disadvantages in the implementation, for example, game-based training, that might be suitable for team conditioning in team sports competitions, might be not suitable for simulating the demands of running competitions, such as repetitition and high in- tensity, so that the application of the method depends on the goal expected by the trainer or teacher (Gabbett, Jenkins, & Abernethy, 2009). On the other hand, in the implementation of the technical learning approach, bas- ketball learning activities were directed at drill exercis- es to master the basic basketball skill techniques, which made this approach monotonous and boring for stu- dents, so that it did not stimulate student interest. Alt- hough they looked bored at the beginning, they were more enthusiastic in the next lesson because the drill material that was applied gradually helped improve their skills and increase their confidence when playing the game. It is because the characteristics of the tech- nical learning approach implementation in the learning process include a lower mobility for students to move compared to the tactical approach implementation, so that students with low physical fitness levels can follow the learning process optimally and have an impact on their basketball skill learning outcome developments (Bogdanis, Ziagos, Anastasiadis, & Maridaki, 2007). Furthermore, the drill practice material also helped stu- dents get a better physical fitness. Previous research examining the application of technical training to im- prove running performance of High School female stu- dents having low running performance showed that the application of the training technique was effective in improving running ability (Nishimura, Miyazaki, Ki- nomura, & Kizuka, 2021). Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Lutfi Nur & Arief Abdul Malik / Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (1) (2021) 57 CONCLUSION The authors concluded that, in general, the tactical approach intervention had a better impact than the tech- nical approach on the basketball skill learning outcome achievements. Furthermore, there was an interaction between the learning approach and the level of physical fitness, which means that there is a relationship be- tween these variables. Furthermore, according to the student physical fitness level, the tactical approach had a better impact on the basketball skill learning out- comes for students with high physical fitness levels, while for students with a low physical fitness level, the technical approach had a better impact. The Authors recommended that teachers should be able to see the characteristics of students before deter- mining the learning approach, because each learning approach has its own characteristics. Therefore, the same learning approach could not suit the characteris- tics of all students in different classes and different schools. This research is limited to male student partici- pants in Junior High School level. For that reason, the researchers hoped that the next research could compare the female students at other educational unit levels. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research did not receive specific grants from any public, commercial, or nonprofit institutions. REFERENCES Alison, S., & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus a games for understanding approach. The British Jour- nal of Physical Education, 28(3), 9–13. Bogdanis, G. C., Ziagos, V., Anastasiadis, M., & Maridaki, M. (2007). Effects of two different short- term training programs on the physical and technical abilities of adolescent basketball players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 10(2), 79–88. Brooker, R., Kirk, D., Braiuka, S., & Bransgrove, A. (2000). Implementing a game sense approach to teaching junior high school basketball in a natural- istic setting. European Physical Education Review, 6 (1), 7–26. Chatzipanteli, A., Digelidis, N., Karatzoglidis, C., & Dean, R. (2014). Physical Education and Sport Peda- gogy A tactical-game approach and enhancement of metacognitive behaviour in elementary school stu- dents. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12 (2), 37–41. https:// doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2014.931366 Cleary, T. J., Zimmerman, B. J., & Keating, T. (2006). Training physical education students to self-regulate during basketball free throw practice. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(2), 251–262. Corbett, D. M., Bartlett, J. D., O’connor, F., Back, N., Torres-Ronda, L., & Robertson, S. (2018). Develop- ment of physical and skill training drill prescription systems for elite Australian Rules football. Science and Medicine in Football, 2(1), 51–57. Ennis, C. D. (2011). Physical Education Curriculum Priorities : Evidence for Education and Skillfulness. Quest, 63(1), 5–18. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2011.10483659 Erfle, S. E., & Gamble, A. (2015). Effects of daily physical education on physical fitness and weight status in middle school adolescents. Journal of School Health, 85(1), 27–35. Fernandez-Rio, J., Méndez-Giménez, A., & Méndez Alonso, D. (2017). Efects of two instructional ap- proaches, sport education and direct instruction, on secondary education students’ psychological re- sponse. Sportk:Revista Euroamericana de Ciencias Del Deporte, 6(2), 9–20. Ferrans, C. E., Zerwic, J. J., Wilbur, J. E., & Larson, J. L. (2005). Conceptual model of health‐related quali- ty of life. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(4), 336 –342. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How To Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. Gabbett, T., Jenkins, D., & Abernethy, B. (2009). Game -based training for improving skill and physical fit- ness in team sport athletes. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(2), 273–283. Gréhaigne, J.-F., Griffin, L. L., & Richard, J.-F. (2005). Teaching and learning team sports and games. USA: Tailor and Francis Group. Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sports concepts and skills: a tactical games approach. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publisher Inc. Grissom, J. B. (2005). Physical fitness and academic achievement. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, 8(1), 11–25. Haris, A., & Ghazali, M. I. (2020). Development of mutual adaptation model PE teaching in Indonesia. International Journal of Yoga, Physiotherapy and Physical Education, 3(4), 74–80. Harvey, S., Cushion, C. J., Wegis, H. M., & Massa- Gonzalez, A. N. (2010). Teaching games for under- standing in American high-school soccer: A quanti- tative data analysis using the game performance as- sessment instrument. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 15(1), 29–54. Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Lutfi Nur & Arief Abdul Malik / Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (1) (2021) 58 Harvey, S., Smith, L., Fairclough, S., Savory, L., & Kerr, C. (2015). Investigation of pupils’ levels of MVPA and VPA during physical education units focused on direct instruction and tactical games models. The Physical Educator, 72(5), 40–58. Himberg, C., Hutchinson, G., & Roussell, J. M. (2003). Teaching Secondary Physical Education: Preparing Adolescents to Be Active for Life. Leeds: Human Kinetic. Jones, R., Marshall, S., & Peters, D. M. (2010). Can we play a game now? The intrinsic benefits of TGfU. European Journal of Physical & Health Education: Social Humanistic Perspective, 4(2), 57–64. Kirk, D., & Macphail, A. (2002). Teaching Games for Understanding and Situated Learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe Model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21(2), 177–192. https:// doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.21.2.177 Launder, A. G. (2001). Play practice: The games ap- proach to teaching and coaching sports. Champaign: Human Kinetics. Metzler, M. W. (2000). Instructional Models for Physi- cal Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Nishimura, S., Miyazaki, A., Kinomura, Y., & Kizuka, T. (2021). Original Article Identifying an effective technique to improve the sprinting performance of male high school students who have a low sprinting ability. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 20 (3), 2021–2029. https://doi.org/10.7752/ jpes.2020.s3273 Nurhasan. (2014). Tes dan Pengukuran Pendidikan Jas- mani. Bandung: FPOK UPI. Ortega, F. B., Cadenas-Sánchez, C., Sánchez-Delgado, G., Mora-González, J., Martínez-Téllez, B., Artero, E. G., … Löf, M. (2015). Systematic review and proposal of a field-based physical fitness-test battery in preschool children: the PREFIT battery. Sports Medicine, 45(4), 533–555. Priklerová, S., & Kucharik, I. (2015). Efficiency Of Technical And Tactical Approach To Teaching Minihandball Game Skills In Different Age Catego- ries. Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universi- tatis Comenianae, 55(2), 132–140. https:// doi.org/10.1515/afepuc-2015-0014 Psotta, R., & Martin, A. (2011). Changes in decision- making skill and skill execution in soccer perfor- mance: the intervention study. Acta Gymnica, 41(2), 7–15. Quay, J., & Peters, J. (2008). Skills, strategies, sport, and social responsibility: reconnecting physical edu- cation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(5), 601– 626. Rexen, C. T., Ersbøll, A. K., Møller, N. C., Klakk, H., Wedderkopp, N., & Andersen, L. B. (2015). Effects of extra school‐based physical education on overall physical fitness development–the CHAMPS study DK. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25(5), 706–715. Rink, J. E. (2013). Measuring teacher effectiveness in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 84(4), 407–418. Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Smith, L., Harvey, S., Savory, L., Fairclough, S., Ko- zub, S., & Kerr, C. (2015). Physical activity levels and motivational responses of boys and girls: A comparison of direct instruction and tactical games models of games teaching in physical education. European Physical Education Review, 21(1), 93– 113. Suherman, A. (2018). Kurikulum Pembelajaran Penjas. Sumedang: UPI Sumedang Press. Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry, J., & Wang, J. (2005). Teaching teachers to play and teach games. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 10(1), 61–82. Copyright © 2021, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Lutfi Nur & Arief Abdul Malik / Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 6 (1) (2021)