A TRIANGULATED NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF FOOTBALL INSTRUCTION IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER EDUCATION: EVIDENCE TO INFORM CURRICULUM IMPROVEMENT

Authors: Jingxia Guo & Zulezwan Bin Ab Malik

ABSTRACT

This study conducted a triangulated needs assessment to diagnose learning challenges and instructional gaps in football instruction within Physical Education Teacher Education (PETE) programmes. Data were collected from 38 PETE students and 10 football instructors using complementary diagnostic surveys combining quantitative and qualitative items. Descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis were employed to characterise learner backgrounds, perceived difficulties, and preferred instructional approaches. Findings revealed that the predominant learning bottlenecks were not technical but tactical–cognitive, including limited decision-making competence, weak tactical understanding, and poor transfer from drills to authentic game play. Social and affective challenges—such as limited cooperation, role awareness, and reduced engagement—were also prominent. Students expressed strong preferences for game-based, tactically oriented, and cooperative learning experiences, while instructors corroborated the need for improved decision-making and teamwork. The analysis identified four interrelated domains of need (physical, cognitive, social, and affective) and translated them into six design requirements (DR1–DR6) for instructional innovation. These results support a shift from technique-centred to hybrid, game-centred pedagogies (e.g., SE–TGfU combinations) that integrate tactical learning, social participation, and motivational support within representative football environments. The findings provide evidence-based guidance for curriculum improvement and pedagogical reform in PETE football courses.

Keywords: needs analysis, PETE, football instruction, TGfU, Sport Education, hybrid pedagogy, decision-making, curriculum improvement

REFERENCES

  1. Arantes, D. (2025). Comparison between TGfU and Direct Instruction model in physical education: Effects on students’ learning outcomes. Education Sciences, 15(3), 305.
  2. Assessing physical, technical, and tactical performance in youth football small-sided games: A systematic review. (2025). Human Movement Science, 96, 103175.
  3. Barbosa Cano, D., Pérez-Ordás, R., Valero-Valenzuela, A., & Méndez-Giménez, A. (2025). Self-determination theory-based interventions to promote motivation in physical education: A review. Education Sciences, 15(2), 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15020256
  4. Bobrownicki, R., Cushion, C., & Partington, M. (2023). Constraints of the constraints-led approach in American football. Sports Coaching Review, 12(1), 45–63.
  5. Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5–8.
  6. Casey, A., & MacPhail, A. (2018). Adopting a models-based approach to teaching physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 23(3), 294–310.
  7. de Joode, T., Raab, M., & Memmert, D. (2023). Examining the effect of task constraints on the emergence of creative actions in football small-sided games. Human Movement Science, 92, 103090.
  8. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2015). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson.
  9. Flaat, L. K., Ingebrigtsen, J., & Dyrstad, S. M. (2025). A multi-model approach to models-based practice in physical education. European Physical Education Review. Advance online publication.
  10. González-Valero, G., Zurita-Ortega, F., Padial-Ruz, R., & Ubago-Jiménez, J. L. (2024). Application of the Teaching Games for Understanding model to enhance decision-making in physical education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 14(1), 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010097
  11. Harvey, S. (2025). Making learning happen in Teaching Games for Understanding: Pedagogical models and practical implications. Education Sciences, 15(5), 631.
  12. Harvey, S., & Jarrett, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278–300.
  13. Hoyo-Guillot, A., Sánchez-Miguel, P. A., & Leo, F. M. (2025). Effects of Sport Education Model–derived active approaches on students’ motivation and engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1409857.
  14. Kennedy, A. (2024). Adding texture to the art of constraints-led coaching: A reflective analysis. Sports Coaching Review, 13(1), 15–30.
  15. Kirk, D. (2013). Educational value and models-based practice in physical education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(9), 973–986.
  16. Li, B. Y., Tan, W. K., & Chen, S. (2023). Situated Game Teaching through Set Plays: A situated learning–guided curricular model for football instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 42(1), 95–108.
  17. Memmert, D. (2010). Testing of tactical performance in youth elite soccer. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 9(2), 199–205.
  18. Nazari, S., Kordi, M. R., & Soltani, H. (2025). Combined TGfU plus Sport Education in physical education: Effects on motivation and engagement. Acta Psychologica, 248, 104926.
  19. Pan, Y. H., Huang, C. H., & Hsu, W. T. (2023). A comparison of the learning effects between TGfU–SE and TGfU on learning motivation, sport enjoyment, responsibility, and game performance in physical education. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1165064. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1165064
  20. Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (Eds.). (2017). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (4th ed.). Pearson.
  21. Richardson, S. J., Smith, M., & Partington, M. (2023). Coaches’ and teachers’ perceptions and application of game-based and constraints-led pedagogy: A qualitative meta-study. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 28(2), 173–188.
  22. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
  23. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
  24. Toivonen, R. M., Matos, S., Gonçalves, B., & Sampaio, J. (2025). The impact of varying small-sided games’ pitch sizes on physical and tactical behavior in youth football. Science and Medicine in Football. Advance online publication.
  25. White, R. L., Bennie, A., & Lonsdale, C. (2021). Self-determination theory in physical education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 102, 103342.
  26. World Health Organization. (n.d.). Healthy China 2030: From vision to action. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/china/healthy-china-2030
  27. Wu, S. (2016). Building a healthy China by enhancing physical activity. Journal of Sport and Health Science, 5(3), 235–240.
  28. Yang, D., Wang, J., & Zhang, L. (2025). The effects of small vs. large-sided games on physical adaptations and tactical behavior in football players: A systematic review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7, 1459823.
  29. Yang, J. (2025). Physical education and health curriculum reform in China: Policy and practice perspectives. Sport, Education and Society, 30(2), 123–138.
  30. Zhang, J. (2024). The effect of the Sport Education Model in physical education on students’ learning attitudes: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 1395.
  31. Zhang, J., Soh, K. G., Bai, X., Anuar, M. A. M., & Xiao, W. (2024). Optimizing learning outcomes in physical education: A systematic review of hybrid pedagogical models integrated with Sport Education. PLOS ONE, 19(12), e0311957. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0311957