THE INFLUENCES OF LEARNING MODEL AND

MOTOR EDUCABILITY IN TECHNICAL LEARNING

RESULTS AND BASKETBALL PLAYING SKILLS FOR
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Hamidi, Ahmad
Sports Science Study Program
Indonesia University of Education
Bandung, Indonesia
ahmadhamidi@upi.edu

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of learning models (TGFU) and Traditional
(Technical) learning models on students who have high and low motor educability on learning outcomes of
basic techniques and basketball playing skills of Grade VII students. The quasi-experimental
nonequivalent-control group with a 2x2 factorial design. was adopted in a sixteenth-week learning activity.
The participants included eighty first graders in two classes of a junior high school. One of the classes (40
students) was assigned to the experimental group and the other was the control group (40 students). The
experimental group learned with TGFU, while the control group learned with the traditional teaching
approach. The instrument used to uncover basic technical data is the batteray test while for playing skill
data is the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI) which has validity and reliability. The
results of the study revealed that. 1). The game learning model (TGFU) is better than the technical learning
model for the results of basic techniques and playing skills in the Basketball Ball 2). The high motor
educability group is better than the low motor educability group on the results of basic technical skills and
basketball playing skills 3). There is no interaction of the learning model with motor educability on
improving basic technical skills and playing skills. Based on these results it can be concluded that the
TGFU learning model is more effective than the technical learning model, whereas for high motor
educability are better than low motor educability on the results of basic technical skills and basketball
playing skills of seventh grade junior high school students in improving basic technical skills and playing
skills.

Keywords : TGFU learning model, technical, motor educability, basic technical and playing
skills, junior high school students

Introduction
Physical education is an educational
discipline that aims to develop all the potential
of students holistically through a variety of
selected physical activities. The concept of
physical education in the Indonesian National
Education System Law (2003, p. 26) is as an
educational process that utilizes physical
activities that are planned systematically to
develop and enhance individuals organically,
neuromuscularly, perceptually, and
emotionally within the framework of the
national education system. In line with that,
Pangrazi and Daeur (1995, p. 84) explained
that:
Physical education is a part of the
general educational programs that
contributes, primarily through
movement experiences, to the total
growth and development all of
children. Physical education is
defined as education of and through
movement, and must be conducted in
a manner that merits this meaning.
 The purpose of the above opinion is that
physical education is part of a general
education program that contributes, especially
through movement experiences, to the overall
growth and development of all children.
Physical education is defined as education
through movement, and must be carried out in
ways that are useful and meaningful. From the
opinion above that physical education cannot
be ruled out. Physical education is part of the
standard curriculum for primary and
secondary education institutions. With proper
processing, the effect on students' physical,
spiritual and social growth and development
will not be doubted--in other words, the effect
is huge. The purpose of physical education
according to Bucher in (Suherman 2009, p. 7):
Is meant for physical development related to
the ability to do activities that involve
physical strength from various organs of a
person's body; motion development is related
to the ability to move effectively, efficiently,
smoothly, beautifully and perfectly (skillful);
mental development is related to the ability to
think and interpret overall knowledge about
physical education into the environment and
social development is related to the ability of
students to adjust to a group or society
In line with Giriwijoyo (2012, p. 73)
"that Physical Education is a physical
activity that is presented as part of curricular
activities, which is used as a medium
(vehicle) for the educational process".
Physical education learning in its
implementation must pay attention to seven
study materials that have been arranged in the
curriculum consisting of games and sports
activities, development activities, self-test /
gymnastics activities, rhythmic activities,
water / aquatic activities, activities outside the
classroom, and health. Suherman (2009, p. 5).
With reference to learning materials in the
forms of: basic techniques / skills and sports,
gymnastics, rhythmic activities, aquatic,
outdoor life skills and personal life skills
(physical fitness, and the formation of
attitudes and behaviors). In the
implementation of physical education there
are various elements that are believed to be
able to improve aspects, cognitive, affective
and psychomotor. Planning, implementing,
and predicting learning will be an effective
way to achieve learning goals in the diversity
of contents of today's physical education
programs.
(3) Such conditions are then referred to as
the learning process (Maksum, 2008, p.10).
So, in essence people who learn are not the
same situation as before they did the act of
learning. Thus, it can be concluded that: (1)
in learning that there must be a change in
behavior factors, it is not said to learn if
there is no change in behavior in it, (2) these
changes are principally new skills, and
(4) (3) the change occurred because of a
deliberate effort.
Michael W. Metzler (2000) states that,
to determine whether a model is good can
make a benchmark derived from several
factors, the most important of these factors is
the determination of goals, determination of
learning objectives, determination of
materials, knowledge of the characteristics of
children and the degree of teacher competence
. The learning model will be more effective if
the teacher feels good in teaching and
students feel happy in learning.
Play is a form of activity that is loved
by children. By playing a situation will arise
that allows the implementation of the
educational process. Regarding the
effectiveness of the teaching and learning
process, Suherman (2011, p. 55) explains
that "the general picture of the effectiveness
of teaching is characterized by his teacher
who is always active and his students are
consistently active learning."
The learning model is one of the
(external factors) that really determines the
success of student learning in achieving
predetermined goals. However, the quality
of students themselves (internal factors) is
very decisive, for example that students who
have a good level of motor ability, then he is
predicted to be easier to learn motor skills.
In this case, one of the differences is the
motor educability of students who must be
considered by the physical education
teachers in schools.
Menurut Clarke (1995, hlm. 265)
“Motor educability is the ease with which an
individual learns new skills”. According to
Clarke (1995, p. 265) The meaning of the
perspective is that Motor educability is how a
new individual can learn a new skill in with
such accesibility. In the learning process the
teacher is faced with a situation where there
are students who have the ability to adapt
quickly to the mastery of the material, some
are very slow to master a material. It really
depends on the aspect of motion experience
that is owned by students since childhood. It
also will depend on the cognitive abilities of
children in perceiving every material provided
by the teacher. In addition, the learning
process that has been taken so far is very
crucial for a student to master the material
well
Through the TGFU Model, it is expected
that a process of transfer of understanding and
basic technical skills to actual playing skills, the
format of learning according to Griffin,
Mitchell, & Oslin (2006) includes “game-
question-practice-game sequence”. Order of
games-questions-practice-games. His playing
performance is carried out critically, that is,
students are directed to the ability to identify
tactic problems that arise during the game,
and at the same time be able to choose the
right response to solve it. Based on the results
of the study, one of the learning models that
can increase students' understanding, interests,
motivation and skills in a basketball game is
the TGFU learning model, while to improve
the technical abilities in the basketball game,
the technical learning model.
The TGfU approach developed by
Bunker and Thorpe (1982) places a different
focus on the teaching of games to
traditional, technical approaches to teaching.
TGfU places the student in a game situation
where tactics, decision-making, problem
solving and skill is developed at the same
time. Isolated skill development is only
utilised when the student recognises the
need for it. Other terminology and variations
of TGfU approach where games are
modified to suit the learner include: ‘Game
Sense’ (den Duyn, 1997), ‘Games for
Understanding’ (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982),
‘Play Practice’ (Launder, 2001) and the
‘Games Concept Approach’ (Wright, Fry,
McNeill, Tan, Tan & Schemp, 2001, cited in
Light, 2003). Modifying and adapting
games is an important part of using this
approach. The concept of ‘modification for
exaggeration’ is used to emphasise
particular tactical aspects of games.
In the learning process in schools, The
learning model is very important to make
the teaching and learning process effective.
Through the TGFU Model students are
expected to be able to improve their playing
abilities, as explained Griffin, Micthell &
Oslin, (1997, hlm. 8) bahwa Model TGFU
merupakan; the approach links tactics and
skills by emphasizing the appropriate timing
of skill practice and skill application within
the tactical context of the game. The intent
of the opinion above is a model that links
tactics and skills by emphasizing the precise
timing of practice practice and the use of
skills in the context of game tactics. In
addition to the TGFU Model there is also a
technical model as revealed by Griffin,
Micthell & Oslin, (1997, hlm. 8):”Skills
have usually been taught in isolation, out of
their tactical context”. The meaning of the
above opinion is that skills are usually
taught separately outside the context of
tactics. In fact, the technical learning model
is a model that focuses on basic techniques
that are carried out repeatedly until students
are skilled at doing so followed by playing
patterns. The traditional skills or technique-
based approach has seen the game broken
down into various skills and then the learner
has progressed in a model going from
simple to complex skills. For the purpose of
this paper the words skill based and
technique based will both refer to this model
although Thorpe (1996) referred to
technique being performed in isolation at
practice whilst skill is the performance of
the technique in a game situation. The
athlete is not always placed in a game
situation. For example, in soccer or
basketball the beginner may start by
dribbling the ball by themselves. They do
not have an opponent and are not in a game
situation. In the learning process to achieve
maximum results, it is influenced by many
factors including learning models, physical
fitness, and the level of student’s motor
educability.
2) Based on observations and observations in
the field, the issues that occur in the school
environment and strengthened by the results
of previous research, especially in junior high
schools today are the effectiveness and
efficiency of the application of learning
models that are not appropriate, without
regard to the needs and characteristics of
students, as well as differences in the level of
motor educability students, so that the
tendency in the learning process is equalized.
Based on the background that has been
explained, several problems that were the
focus of this study were identified, namely: 1)
Students cannot use their skills effectively
when playing. 2) Students are not satisfied
because of lack of play. 3) Low basic
technical skills of passing-stoping and
dribbling basketball students in junior high
school. 4) Low playing skills of students in
playing basketball games for students in
junior high school. 5) Lack of teacher
understanding about the application of the
learning model. That way, there needs to be a
learning program in order to improve the basic
technical skills and playing skills of basketball
students, one of them through a model or
learning model that is adapted to the situation
and conditions as well as the growth and
development of students.
Based on the explanation above, this
study aims to: 1) Know the differences of the
TGFU learning model and the technical
learning model of basic technical skills and
student play skills. 2) Knowing the difference
between high motor educability and low
motor educability towards improving basic
technical skills and student basketball playing
skills.
Literature Review
The TGfU approach developed by Bunker
and Thorpe (1982) places a different focus
on the teaching of games to traditional,
technical approaches to teaching. TGfU
places the student in a game situation where
tactics, decision-making, problem solving
and skill is developed at the same time.
Isolated skill development is only utilised
when the student recognises the need for it.
Other terminology and variations of TGfU
approach where games are modified to suit
the learner include: ‘Game Sense’ (den
Duyn, 1997), ‘Games for Understanding’
(Bunker & Thorpe, 1982), ‘Play Practice’
(Launder, 2001) and the ‘Games Concept
Approach’ (Wright, Fry, McNeill, Tan, Tan
& Schemp, 2001, cited in Light, 2003).
Modifying and adapting games is an
important part of using this approach. The
concept of ‘modification for exaggeration’ is
used to emphasise particular tactical aspects
of games.
The strengths of TGfU in Junior High
school physical education
Teachers have been teaching games for
many years in physical education lessons
and withsporting teams. The key to success
of TGfU is the questioning technique and
the relevance to the student of the
introduction of rules and techniques. The
focus is on the student and problem solving.
In addition, fun and enjoyment result due to
the inclusive nature of TGfU. This approach
to teaching makes very effective use of
active learning in that the students are
learning though playing the games. The use
of questioning is a powerful method of
encouraging players to analyse their actions,
both individually, and as a team. Questions
will generally relate to a particular tactical
aspect of games. Effective phrasing of
questions canalso help to guide the player to
an answer, in the event that they are
struggling with anactivity. Age, experience
and ability level of the players will affect
the complexity of the questions used.
There are several theories that are
recognized as being relevant to the game-
based learning approach, such as cognitive
theory and situated learning theory.
Cognitive theory emphasizes that learners
should master basic skills to further acquire
higher-level abilities while learning new
things. It also emphasizes that learning
processes are progressive and move from
simplicity to complexity; moreover, games
that are adopted need tostimulate students’
learning motivation and make learning more
fun (Gagné, 1985). Situated learning theory
states that learners should enter learning
scenarios to acquire knowledge. The
knowledge that is actively explored in the
scenarios should not only be useful, but
should also be analogical. Therefore,
establishing a rich learning scenario enables
learners to gain practical problem-solving
abilities via observation and behavioral
exploration, and a well designed game is
able to provide such a learning scenario
(Winn, 1993; Young, 1993; Cuenca López
& Martín Cáceres, 2010; Kim, Park, &
Baek, 2009).
Research Design
The population in this study were all
male students of class VII SMP Lab School
UPI Bandung, amounting to 80 people. The
sampling technique used was simple
random sampling. The method that is used
in this study is the quasi-experimental
nonequivalent-control group with a 2x2
Factorial design. Fraenkel et al (2012, p.
277 - 278) described as seen in the
following Table 1:

Table 1.
Research Design Experiment
Treatment R O X Y1 O
Y
Control R O C 1 O
Treatment R O X Y2 O
Control R O C Y2 O

Table 2.
Research Design Factorial 2 x 2
Levels of Motor Educability(B) Learning Model (A)
 TGFU () Teknis( )
High Motor Educability ()
Low Motor Educability ()

Keterangan :
A : The learning model is divided into two classifications
A1 : TGFU learning approach
A2 : Technical learning model
B : The level of motor educability is divided into two classifications
B1 : High motor educability
B2 : Low motor educability
A1B1 : Student groups thattaught using the TGFU learning model and have a high level of Motor Educability.
A1B2 : Student groups that taught using the TGFU learning model and have a low level of Motor Educability.
A1B2 : Student groups that are taught using the Technical learning model and have a high level of Motor
Educability.
A2B2 : Student groups that are taught using the Technical Learning Model and have a low level of Motor
Educability

Based on the factorial design drawings
above, the following used in this study can be
seen in Tables 1 and 2.
Participants
The participants in this study included
eighty first graders in two classes of junior
high school in West Java Indonesia. One of
the classes was assigned to be the
experimental group and the other was
appointed to be the control group. In order
to avoid influences caused by different
instructors, the two classes were taught by
the same instructor. Both the experimental
group and the control group had fourty
students, including tweenty males and
tweenty females. This study lasted for six
weeks, three time for a week and each week
included feedback session.
Tools
Pre-test is done before the treatment is given,
namely Physical Education learning using
TGFU learning models and technical learning
in basketball game material. Pre-test is done
to see the extent to which the basic technical
skills and play skills possessed by students in
both groups. To get data on basic technical
skills and playing skills of the two groups, a
basic basketball skills test is given, which is
Table 3.
Research Implementation Program
Meet-
ing TGFU Learning Materials
1-2 motor educability test
Initial test of basketball skills Initial
test of playing skills
3 Initial playing skills test
Games of chest pass, bounce pass, and
4-5 overhead pass
Performance when receiving the ball and
6-7 immediately shoot the ball to the target
Performance when providing support so
8-10 that the ball carrier can shake the defense
Performance when passing the ball to the
11-13 targeted player quickly and precisely
called a batteray test. Then to get data on
students' playing skills; students play
basketball for 5 minutes recorded on video
tape on a 5 vs 5 game and assessed using
Game Performance Assessment Instrument
(GPAI) instrument. After the data is obtained
through the instrument, then the data is
processed and interpreted into the pre-test
scores of each variable.
Learning Activities
Table 3 presents the teaching activities held
in the study. The teaching activities were
designed based on basketball learning to
have five topics, including: ‘games of
passing,’ ‘games of shooting,’ ‘supporting
activities in attack,’ ‘games of tactical
depending,’ and ‘games of combination for
attacking and depending.’ Each topic was
taught for forty minutes. One class was held
each week to fit
in with the students’ physical education
class. The experiment lasted for six weeks.
After the treatment of each model was
given for 16 meetings held three times a week,
then the samples were given back battery tests
and playing skills tests using the Game
Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI).
To see the extent of improvement starting
from before being given treatment until after
being given treatment .
Technical Learning Materials
motor educability test
Initial test
Basketball playing skills
Carry out passing technique within short
distance properly and correctly
Carry out long passes properly and correctly
Carry out dribbling technique properly and
correctly
Combine passing, dribbling, shooting
techniques in basketball
 Performance when limiting latitude 14-
16 within the defense area and blocking
opponent’s movement when controlling
the ball
Performance when developing 17-19
technique and individual to attack and
defense
Final test of basic technical skills and
basketball playing skills
20
Carry out combined techniques of
passing and dribbling
Carry out shooting technique in
direction to the ring properly
Final test of basic technical and
basketball playing skills
Results
The results of the study are detailed. The following is a description of the results of the
research gain data on basic technical skills and basketball playing skills as presented in Table
4.

Table 4.
Description of basic technical skills and basketball playing skills
Motor Educability Description Basic Skills Playing Skills
TGFU Technical TGFU Technical
High N 10 10 10 10
Average 16.26 7.98 1.53 1.05
Std Deviation 11.18 7.72 0.74 0.49
Maximum 43.92 24.26 3.17 1.83
Minimum 3.23 0.87 0.64 0.33
Low N 10 10 10 10
Average 8.01 5.32 1.12 0.72
Std Deviation 6.13 3.35 0.27 0.36
Maximum 19.30 9.15 1.61 1.50
Minimum 0.54 0.64 0.83 0.17
TOTAL N 20 20 20 20
Average 12.14 6.65 1.32 0.88
Std Deviation 9.74 5.95 0.59 0.45

1. Test differences in the TGFU learning model and the Technical learning model on
improving basic technical skills and student basketball playing skills.

a. Statistical Assumptions Test

Table 5.
Data Gain Normality Test for basic technical skills and basketball playing skills of
TGFU and Technical Learning Model Groups

Learning Motor
Skills Z Score p Explanation
Category/Group Educability
Basic Technical Skills 0,757 0,615 Normal
High
TGFU Playing Skills 0,680 0,744 Normal
Learning Model Basic Technical Skills 0,648 0,796 Normal
Low
Playing Skills 0,533 0,939 Normal
Basic Technical Skills 0,622 0,835 Normal
High
Technical Learning Playing Skills 0,490 0,970 Normal
Model Basic Technical Skills 0,520 0,949 Normal
Low
Playing Skills 0,683 0,740 Normal
 Table 6.
Homogeneity Test of Variance Data Gain on Basic Technical and Basketball
Playing Skills for Students with TGFU and Technical Learning Model

Gain Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Basic Skills 2,300 1 38 0,138
Playing Skills 0,504 1 38 0,482

b. Statistical Hypothesis Test

Table 7.
Data Gain t Test Results of Basic Basketball Technical Playing Skills For TGFU
Learning Model and Technical Group

Learning Average Score

Average Sd Statistical t Test Explanation
Category/Group Difference p
Model TGFU 12,1365 9,74150
Model 6,6500 5,94763 5,48650 2,150 0,038 Signifikan
Teknis

Table 8.
Data Gain t Test Results of Basketball Playing Skills For TGFU Learning Model and
Technical Group

Learning Average Statistical

Average Sd Score p Explanation
Category/Group Difference t Test
Model TGFU 1,3240 0,58504
0,43950 2,656 0,011 Signifikan
Model Teknis 0,8845 0,45310

2. Test differences between high motor educability and low motor educability on improving
basic Uji Asumsi Statistik technical skills and students’ playing basketball skills
a. Statistical Assumptions Test

Table 9.

Homogeneity Test of Variance Data Gain on Basic Technical and Basketball

Playing Skills for Students with High and Low Motor Educability

Gain Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Basic technical skills 2.391 1 38 0.130
Playing skills 1.499 1 38 0.228
b. Statistical Hypothesis Test
1) Data Gain Test for Basic Technical Skills .

Table 10.
Data Gain t Test Results of Basic Basketball Technical Playing Skills
High Motor Educability Group (ME. T) and Low (ME. R)
Motor Average Statistic
Average Sd Score p Explanation
Educability Difference t Test
High 12,1230 10,26690
5,45950 2,138 0,039 Significant
Low 6,6635 5,00174

2) Data Gain Test for Basketball Playing Skills

Table 11.
Data Gain t Test Results of Basketball Playing Skills
High Motor Educability Group (ME. T) and Low (ME. R)
Motor Average Statistic
Average Sd Score p Explanation
Educability Difference t Test
High 1,2920 0,66037
0,37550 2,215 0,033 Significant
Low 0,9165 0,37273

3. Interaction test based on Learning Model and Motor Educability towards the improvement
of students’ basic technical skills and basketball playing skills
a. Interaction test based on Learning Model and Motor Educability towards the improvement
of students’ basic basketball technical playing skills

Table 12.
Homogeneity Test of Variance Data on Basic Basketball Playing Skills
Viewed From Motor Educability and Learning Model

F df1 df2 Sig,

1,369 3 36 0,268

Anova Test Results for Two Tracks of Basic Technical Skills Viewed from Motor Educability
and Learning Models

Table 13.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable:Keterampilan Dasar
Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Model 301.017 1 301.017 5.163 .029
Pembelajaran
Motor Educability 298.061 1 298.061 5.112 .030
Model 78.036 1 78.036 1.338 .255
Pembelajaran * Motor
Educability
a. R Squared = .244 (Adjusted R Squared = .181)
 Graph 1
Interaction Between Learning Model and Motor Educability
Towards Basic Basic Skills Improvement

b. Interaction test based on Learning Model and Motor Educability towards basketball
playing skills
Table 13.
Homogeneity Test of Variance Data on Basketball Playing Skills
Reviewed Based on Motor Educability and Learning Model
F df1 df2 Sig,
2,584 3 36 0,068

Anova Test Results for Two Tracks of Playing Skills in Basketball Training Viewed from
Motor Educability and Learning Models
Table 14.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Playing Skills
Source Type III Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Learning 1.932 1 1.932 7.745 .009
Model
MotorEducability 1.410 1 1.410 5.653 .023
Learning .015 1 .015 .059 .809
Model *
MotorEducability
a. R Squared = .272 (Adjusted R Squared = .211)

Graph. 2
The Interaction Between Learning Models and Motor Educability
Towards Increased Playing Skills in the Basketball
Discussion
1. Differences in the TGFU learning
model and the Technical learning model for
improving basic technical skills and students
playing basketball skills.
The first hypothesis testing shows that
there are significant differences between the
technical groups and TGFU for most of the
skills execution steps. that there is a
difference between the TGFU learning
model and the technical learning model on
basic technical skills and play skills, in this
study, the TGFU Model is better than the
technical model. Based on the researcher's
findings, the difference is caused among
others:
a. The process of implementing learning
from both learning models.
b. Development of student movement skills.
c. Fact the test result data regarding basic
technical skills and playing skills.
Through the learning model of TGFU, the
learning atmosphere is more interesting and
stimulates students' interest in learning.
Because the systematic implementation of
learning basketball games begins with
playing activities, although in a nuance
modified, both modified in terms of the
learning environment and game rules.
According to Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin
(1997, p. 8), that
“ the aim of a tactical approach is to
improve students’ game performance, which
involves combining tactical awareness and
skill execution.” The intention of the above
opinion is that the objective of the TGFU
learning model is a planned effort to perfect
the students' game appearance, which
combines both elements of awareness of
tactics and expertise.
With the TGFU learning model,
students involved in game learning activities
will be directed towards understanding
play patterns. There are patterns of learning
activities using the TGFU Model, in more
detail explained by Metzler (2000, p. 369),
the steps are as follows:
(1)Game form, students are directed to
the various game forms, (2) teaching for
understanding, teacher stops the keep-
away game and asks questions,
(3) drills for skill development, teacher
explains and demonstrates the proper
defensive stance to the class, (4) return
to game form, students play “keep-
away” again, (5) review and closure,
teacher reviews the key concepts and
some important principles of game
forms that students have done.
The purpose of Metzler's statement
above refers to the stages of TGFU
Model learning as follows:
(1) The form of the game, students are
directed to the forms of the game, (2)
teaching for understanding, when
learning takes place the teacher pauses
learning activities to hold questions and
answers with students, (3) repetition for
skills development, the teacher explains
and gives examples to students to repeat
the technical skills, (4) return to the
form of play, the students play the game
again in accordance with the teacher's
instructions, (5) evaluation and closing,
the teacher re-explains the concepts and
principles important play patterns that
have been carried out by students.
In the technical learning model learning
tends to be more emphasized on the mastery
of basic technical elements which are done
repeatedly, and the application of learning is
focused on mastering the basic techniques
first and then on the game. This can have an
impact on learning situations and conditions
that tend to be boring and monotonous, so
they are less stimulating student interest in
learning. In addition, students who learn
become less concentrated and motivation to
develop their abilities in skills with different
basketball tends to decrease.
In addition, Hoedaya (2001, p. 17) states
that "the target of the teaching process is
through the TGFU Model
is to improve the appearance of students'
play, by involving a combination of TGFU
awareness and the application of basic
technical skills into the actual form of play.
Table 15.
The Difference Between TGFU Learning Model and Technical Model
TGFU Model
1.Teach technical and tactic skills
through game modifications.
2.Teach the whole game and then
to parts.
3.Focus on athletes or students.
4.Exciting and improving exercises
motivation.
5.Players or students become free and
have the skills to think.
6.Training or learning sessions are designed for
develop thinking skills,
understanding and returning decisions.
7.Players or students have the opportunity to
help the coach or teacher take part
decision.
The style of training or teaching is more
8.inclined
to the cooperative style.
Griffin & Patton, (2005) in Carpenter
E. J.'s dissertation (2010, p. 12). explain
that:
If implemented faithfully, the expected
student outcomes during a Tactical
Games Model (TGM) sport unit
include:
(a) increased student motivation, (b)
improved student decision-making, and
(c) better student game performance.
The purpose of the opinion above is
that if the TGFU game model is applied
continuously, students will get results
during the activity
" with technical training or learning in a
game. A description of the differences
between TGFU and technical learning
models can be seen in Table 15.
Technical Model
1.Prefer repeated training
technical skills.
2.Teach special elements of
the game in isolation and then
combined with the whole
game.
3.Focus on the coach or teacher.
4.Exercise is often boring and
decrease motivation.
5.Players or students become tall
its dependence on the coach or teacher.
6.Because it prioritizes repetition, player
or students are made like robots.
7.Players or students have limitations
in making decisions.
The style of training or teaching is more
8.inclined
to the command style.
sports that include: (a) increasing
student motivation, (b) increasing students
in decision making, and (c) better student
game performance.
Based on practical findings from the
authors' research results, and supported by
several previous research findings. It turns
out that the learning outcomes of basic
technical skills and basketball playing skills
of students taught through the TGFU
learning model are better than students
taught through technical learning models.

2. Difference in high motor
educability and low motor educability
towards improving basic technical skills and
student basketball playing skills.
Based on testing the second
hypothesis there are differences in mastery
of basic technical skills and significant
basketball playing skills in male students of
class VII at SMPN 6 Sungaiselan, Kab.
Central Bangka, where the results of
mastery of basic technical skills and
basketball playing skills groups of students
who have high levels of motor educability
tend to be better than groups of students
with low motor educability. Motor
educability is a term that shows someone's
capacity in learning skills that are naturally
new in a short time and quickly. Motor
educability refers to an ability that underlies
the formation of the skills to be performed.
Mastery of a movement skill is a process in
someone who develops a set of responses
into a pattern. The ability of motor
educability is an ability that underlies the
formation of the skills to be performed.
Mastery of a movement skill is a process in
someone who develops a set of responses
into a pattern of movement that is
coordinated, organized, and well-integrated
Rusli Lutan, (1988, p. 95). The potential
qualities of motor educability will easily
give an idea of one's ability to learn new
movements. The higher the potential level of
motor educability, it means the degree of
mastery of new movements is easier. The
higher the potential level of motor
educability, it means the degree of mastery
of new movements more easily (Kirkendall,
et.al, 1987, p. 131, Rusli Lutan, 1988, p.
119). Therefore, if someone has a high level
of motor educability (ME) then it will be
able to easily, quickly master the basic
technical skills and playing basketball skills
(passing-stopping, dribbling, heading and
shooting) with good quantity and quality of
movement than people who have low levels
of motor educability (ME). Besides the
ability of motor educability is the basis for
the formation of movement skills, so that in
learning basic techniques and playing
basketball skills will be more quickly
mastered if supported by high motor
educability
Based on practical findings from the
writer's research results and supported by
several previous research findings. an
increase in the results of the gain It turns out
the learning outcomes of the basketball
skills of groups of students taught through
the TGFU Model are better than groups of
students taught through technical learning
models in groups of students who have high
Motor Educability.
There is a difference between motor
educability. This is caused by both the
characteristics of the learning model and the
fact of the test result data regarding the
results of basic technical skills and
basketball playing skills.
3. Interaction of the learning model
and motor educability on the improvement
of basic technical skills and student playing
skills in basketball.
The third hypothesis testing shows
that there is no interaction between learning
model and motor educability on learning
outcomes of basic technical skills and
basketball playing skills. Based on practical
findings from the writer's research results
and supported by several previous research
findings. It turns out that there is no
interaction between the learning model and
motor educability on learning outcomes of
basic technical skills and basketball playing
skills.
In addition, other factors that cause or
become obstacles to the absence of
interaction in this study are the condition of
infrastructure, in this case the better the
condition of infrastructure, the easier it is
for the ball
to be controlled when dribbling or passing.
Conversely, if the target is inadequate, it
will be difficult to control the ball when
passing-stoping and dribbling during the
game.
This result is reinforced by the opinion
of Lutan, (2005, p. 126) "Testers of
prospective students in sports teacher schools
such as FPOK-IKIP Bandung for example,
repeatedly apply the motor educability test at
the beginning of each year of admission of
prospective students. But unfortunately the
results are not satisfactory ". Some
researchers, including Brace 1926 and Gie and
Espenschade 1942 in (Lutan, 2005, p. 127)
"tried to compile tests to measure motor
educability but the results were not
satisfactory either and failed to identify motor
educability. Based on this description, it
influences the interaction results of the
hypothesized answers.
Conclussion
1. Based on the results of data processing
and analysis obtained answers to the research
questions raised. The answer to the research
question is a conclusion. The conclusions
obtained are as follows:
2. Learning outcomes of basic technical
skills and playing skills of students taught
through the TGFU learning model are better
than students taught through the technical
learning model.
3. The results of learning basic technical
skills and basketball playing skills of groups
of students who have high motor educability
are better than groups of students who have
low motor educability.
4. There is no interaction between learning
model and motor educability on learning
outcomes of basic technical skills and
basketball playing skills.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
References
Carpenter, E. J. (2010) Te tactical games
model sport experience: an examination
of student motivation and game
performance during an ultimate frisbee
unit. Amherst : university of massachusets
Clarke, (1995) Application of measuerment
to health and physical education.
Englewood Cliffs, N. J Prentice Hall.
Fraenkel, Wallen, Hyun. (2012). How to
design and evaluate research in
education. Eighth edition. United States
: Mc Graw hill
Griffin, L.L. Mitchell, S.A., dan Oslin, J.L.
(1997). Teaching sport concept and skills:
a tactical games approach. Illionois:
Champaign.
Giriwijoyo, S. dan Sidik, D. Z. (2012).
Ilmu faal olahraga. Bandung : PT.
Remaja RosdaKarya.
Hoedaya, D. (2001). Model keterampilan
TGFU dalam pembelajaran bolabasket:
konsep dan metode. Jakarta: Departemen
Pendidikan Nasional. Direktorat Jenderal
Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.
Lutan, R. (1988) Belajar keterampilan
motorik pengantar teori dan metode:
Jakarta: Depdikbud.
Lutan, R. (2005) Teori belajar keterampilan
motorik, konsep dan penerapannya :
Bandung. Depdiknas
Metzler, M. W. (2000) Intructional models
for physical education. United States of
America: Allyn & Bacon.
Maksum, A. (2012) Metode penelitian dalam
olahraga, Surabaya: Unesa University.
Nurhasan, dan Cholil. H. (2007) Tes dan
pengukuran keolahragaan. Bandung
:FPOK UPI.
Pendidikan Nasional. (2003). Undang-
Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor
20 tahun 2003 tentang system
pendidikan nasional. Jakarta: Diknas.
Pangrazi, R. & Daeur, V. (1995). Dynnamic
physical education for elementary school
children (edisi 8). New York: Macmillan.
Sagala, Syaiful. (2005). Konsep dan makna
pembelajaran. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Suherman, A. (2009). Revitalisasi
pengajaran dalam pendidikan jasmani.
Bandung: CV. Bintang Warli Artika.
Yudiana, Y. (2010). Implementasi model
Model TGFU dan teknis dalam
pembelajaran permainan bolavoli pada
pendidikan jasmani sswa smp (tinjauan
perbedaan keterampilan teknik dasar
dan bermain bolavoli, serta
keterampilan berpikir kritis siswa SMPN
4 Kota Bandung). Disertasi. Prodi POR
Pascasarjana UPI.