Effect of an active direct teaching model on the academic performance of university students of physical activity and sport
Keywords:
active direct teaching model, academic performance, physical activity pedagogy,, active methodologies, higher educationAbstract
This study aimed to determine the effect of the MEDA (Methodology of Research Methodology for the Diagnosis of Education) on students of Physical Activity and Sports Pedagogy at the Central University of Ecuador. A quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design with a non-equivalent control group was used. The sample consisted of 60 students (30 in the experimental group and 30 in the control group). A structured 40-item questionnaire, validated by experts, was administered. It included direct questioning, logical ordering, and multi-item questions. Covariates such as the national Ser Bachiller test score and prior performance in the Action Research subject were also controlled. The results showed that, although both groups started from similar levels in the pretest, the experimental group achieved significantly higher academic performance in the posttest. This positive effect remained even after controlling variables such as general abilities and prior performance. It is concluded that
MEDA significantly improves learning by structuring content, guiding students’ practice, and providing continuous feedback, thus promoting knowledge retention, active participation, and the development of practical skills. These findings reinforce the need to adopt active, evidence-based methodologies to improve educational quality in university education.
Downloads
References
Alfieri, L., Brooks, P. J., Aldrich, N. J., & Tenenbaum, H. R. (2011). Does discovery-based instruction enhance learning? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021017
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1999). Applications and misapplications of cognitive psychology to mathematics education [Unpublished Manuscript]. https://www.psy.cmu.edu/~mm4b/misapplied.html
Boxer, A. (2019). The ResearchED guide to direct instruction: An evidence-informed guide for teachers. The ResearchED Series.
Castejón, J. L. (2014). Aprendizaje y rendimiento académico: Procesos y factores (1.ª ed.).Editorial Club Universitario.
Galván-Cardoso, A., & Siado-Ramos, E. (2021). Educación tradicional: Un modelo de enseñanza centrado en el estudiante.CIENCIAMATRIA, 7(12), 962–975. https://doi.org/10.35381/cm.v7i12.457
Grossen, B. (1996). The story behind project Follow Through. Effective School Practices,15(1), 4–9. https://www.behavior.org/resources/901.pdf
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Jerrim, J., Oliver, M., & Sims, S. (2022). The relationship between inquiry-based teaching and students’ achievement: New evidence from a longitudinal PISA study in England. Learning and Instruction, 80, 101310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101310
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Liem, G. A., & Martin, A. J. (2013). Direct instruction. En J. Hattie & E. M. Anderman(Eds.), International guide to student achievement (pp. 366–369). Routledge.
Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.14
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Maczuga, S. (2015). Which instructional practices most help first-grade students with and without mathematics difficulties? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714536608
Orozco, E., Jaya, A., Ramos, F., & Guerra, R. (2020). Retos a la gestión de la calidad en las instituciones de educación superior en Ecuador. Educación Médica Superior. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.es_ES
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. En M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (3.ª ed., pp. 376–391). Macmillan.
Silva, R., Farias, C., Moreno, M. P., & Mesquita, I. (2021). Modelos centrados en el alumno en educación física: Pautas pedagógicas y tendencias de investigación. Retos, 42, 331–343.https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v42i0.86469
Stockard, J. (2014). Blinded to evidence: How educational researchers respond to empirical data. En S. Engelmann & J. Stockard (Eds.), The science and success of Engelmann direct instruction (p. 5–28). https://pages.uoregon.edu/jeans/SSDI_2014.pdf
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Khoury, C. R. (2020). All students can succeed: A half century of research on the effectiveness of Direct Instruction. Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield.
Sweller, J. (2020). Cognitive load theory and educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09701-3
Valencia, A., Mínguez, P., & Martos, D. (2020). La formación inicial del profesorado de Educación Física: Una mirada desde la atención a la diversidad. Retos, 37, 597–604. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v37i37.74180
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Víctor Fabricio Ortiz Aldean, Jorge Luis Mateo Sánchez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This journal provides immediate open access to its content, based on the principle that providing the public with free access to research supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
In addition, open arbitration papers are accepted, preferably from Research Gate.
