Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) un método de enseñanza comprensiva en educación física: Revisión Sistemática de los últimos 5 años
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over decades physical education has implemented different pedagogical approaches or models as tools to improve the educational practice and the implementation of a comprehensive teaching method as the Teaching Games for Understanding has been one of those forms. However, there is a current debate with respect what would be the best approach to be implemented in the physical education classes and Mexico has not been the exception. The purpose of this systematic review from the last 5 years is to analyze an approach as pedagogical tool that physical education teachers from different levels in Mexico could implement. Through the PRISMA methodology there were 562 articles identifies, once the inclusion criteria were applied, only 25 articles were eligible, although only 12 completed the inclusion criteria. The results show that implementing the Teaching Games for Understanding is an effective and efficient to be used by teachers within the physical education classes. Its implementation has been predominantly in developed countries such as Spain, Canada and the United States. The combination with another method has also shown to be an attractive way so that children and youth participate in class. As such, it can be said that this pedagogical tool could be an incentive to implemented with success by physical education teachers in Mexico. Being an area of opportunity to an in-depth and epistemological study in the use of this approach in physical education classes in Mexico.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".