Improving Students Executive Function through Brain-Based

Physical Education Learning

Imas Damayanti

, Adang Suherman

, Juntika Nurikhsan

and Anam Anam

Faculty of Sport and Health Education, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia

Department of Neurology, Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Padjajaran, Jalan Professor Eyckman No.38, Bandung,

Indonesia

Imas_d@upi.edu

Keywords: Brain-Based Physical Education Learning, Executive Function.

Abstract: This study aims to compare the improvement of executive function of students who follow traditional

physical education learning and those who follow Brain-Based Physical Education Learning (BBPEL). The

method used in this study was quasi experimental method with unequivalent design pre-post-test control

group design. The research subjects are Junior High School students class VII about 39 students. The

treatment lasted for 8 meetings. The executive function is measured by a word-color test stroop. The results

of this study indicate that there is a significant gain-score difference in the ability of executive function

between BBPEL group (= 17,4685 sec) and traditional group (= 11,0237 seconds) p = 0,043 <0,05.

Conclusion, physical education can contribute positively to the executive function of the student, and the

contribution can be optimized with the BBPEL learning model significantly.

1 INTRODUCTION

The learning process is very essential; it should

teach students how to learn. In 21

century, as the

age of advanced technology, the success of life is

definitely increasingly dependent on the mastery of

the executive function process, namely goal setting,

planning, organizing, prioritizing, initiating, change

(shifting), and self-monitoring (self-monitoring).

Academic success will also depend on the ability of

students to organize their time, organize and

prioritize materials and information, distinguish core

ideas in detail, change approaches flexibly, monitor

their own progress and reflect on their work.

Learning that does not sharpen this executive

functional process will lead to a separation between

what is taught in school and what students need to

succeed in school or later in real life or work life.

Real life requires individuals to be able to learn

independently and organize and put together the

rapidly changing information that is acquired

through the Internet or other web-based media

(Metzler, 2017).

A good executive function is needed by

Indonesians in the future so as not to erode the

times, and ultimately become a slave in their own

country when the current globalization can no longer

be contained. Therefore the teacher should apply a

comprehensive plan of learning that can be more

than just delivering the material but at the same time

improving the executive function of the students.

"The core of the teaching process is the arrangement

of environments within which the students can

interact and study how to learn" (Joyce and Weil,

1996). Such comprehensive learning planning is a

learning model used by teachers in teaching

students. The comprehensive plan includes the

theoretical basis, the learning objectives, the

teacher's expertise in the content of the lesson, the

learning activities appropriate to the stage of student

development, expectations of teacher and student

behavior, unique learning structure, outcome

measurements and how to verify the implementation

of the model itself (Metzler, 2017).

In the last two decades, along with technological

developments in the field of neuroscience,

knowledge of the workings of the brain began to

give effect to the model of learning in the classroom.

Imaging Technologies such as Magnetic Resonance

Imaging (MRI), functional MRI (fMRI),

Electroencephalography (EEG), computed

tomography (PAT), computed axial tomography

Damayanti, I., Suherman, A., Nurikhsan, J. and Anam, A.

Improving Students Executive Function through Brain-Based Physical Education Learning.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 489-495

ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9

489

(CAT) and molecular biology examinations such as

enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to explore the

functional neuroanatomy of the learning process.

Information gained from these modalities builds a

scientific bar illustrating how the biological learning

process actually works. Educational experts then

take this scientific bar and apply it to classroom

learning, then Brain-Based Learning (BBL) was

born (Craig, 2003; Willis, 2008; Jensen and Rohwer,

1966).

In addition to the learning model, as mentioned

above nutritional factors and physical activity can

give effect to the learning process. For nutritional

factors in general, of course we still have to expect a

lot on improving the nutritional quality of families

that deal with the nation's economic sector. We can

use physical activity as a weapon to improve the

quality of learning itself because physical activity

provides positive benefits to the brain. Physical

activity promotes cerebral capillary growth, cerebral

blood flow, oxygenation, neurotrophic production,

growth of hippocampal cells (learning and memory

centers), neurotransmitter levels, development of

anterior connections, neural network density, and

brain tissue volume. These physiological changes

are associated with increased attention capability,

improved information processing, storage, and

retrieval, as well as improved coping and positive

affect (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,

2010).

In the Indonesian curriculum, physical activity is

only accommodated by physical education subjects.

That is just 3 hours of lessons in the latest

curriculum. Nevertheless, it is of course very

important to utilize these subjects as a weapon to

enhance executive function, BDNF levels and

ultimately student academic achievement. The

unique characteristic of the physical education

subject itself has actually contributed significantly to

the students' cognitive dimension (Suherman, 2013).

However, this donation is underestimated by the

students, teachers, principals and Indonesians in

general. Physical education is marginalized precisely

because the assumption of these subjects is

unimportant and may even interfere with student

academic achievement (Hardman et al., 2005).

The traditional physical education learning

model that is applied by majority of physical

education teachers in Indonesia may be one of the

causes of physical education benefit to students'

unseen cognition increasing. The study of physical

education in Indonesia for decades is similar to

physical education in America hundreds of years

ago, that is prioritizing the physical aspect. Because

of the former colonized wounds, the founding

fathers of the Indonesian nation try to use sport as a

strategic and political tool, to break out of the

collective inferiority of being a newly independent

nation after so many centuries of colonized and

systematically ignored. The growing belief that sport

can be an evidence that the Indonesian people have

the same potential and ability with other nations.

This is demonstrated through the efforts of the

Indonesian nation to take part in various regional

and international sporting events. What happened

then, the paradigm of physical education at the level

of educational unit is also shifted. Physical

education no longer becomes an educational tool,

but is sharpened into a tool to help the sport

movement as an enforcer of the nation's posture, so

that more seeds of the sportsperson can be prepared.

As a result, as we can see today, physical education

is more oriented towards sporting achievement than

as a tool in the process of socializing and educating

children through sport. So strong the paradigm of

sports achievement in our physical education, until

now the paradigm is still strongly gripped by the

physical education teachers. With the wrong

paradigm, the sports program in physical education

more emphasizes the hope that the program ends on

the early benefits of early breeding benefits. In short,

the main goal of physical education is the physical

aspect.

Therefore, it is important to recognize whether a

model of physical education in accordance with the

principles of BBL (Brain-Based Physical Education

Learning / BBPEL) can accommodate intracurricular

physical activity in schools that can improve

executive function. Existing physical education

models (Personalized System for Instruction,

Cooperative Learning, The Sports Education Model,

Peer Teaching Model, Inquiry Teaching, and The

Tactical Games) contain elements of BBL learning

but are not comprehensive. For example cooperative

learning model but ignore the personal aspects and

tactical games that emphasize the competition.

Moreover learning physical education which is

traditional one-way direct teaching in the form of

skill-drill-game. The teacher gives an example of a

physical motion skill. Then all students must master

the motion skills by doing drill (repetition-

repetition) to be able to perform similar movements

in accordance with the theory and examples of

teachers. After mastering the motion, students

perform games that require these motion skills.

Traditional learning models contain elements of

physical activity that can naturally provide cognitive

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

490

benefits, but the character of learning causes the

benefits of physical activity is not optimal.

2 METHODS

2.1 Procedure

The Research was conducted in 5 months at SMP

Lab School Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Bandung. Method of research used in this research

Quantitative method with quasi experiment,

unequivalent control group design. The participants

are junior high school students class VII. Two

classes were selected as sample with similar

cognitive ability and academic achievement

(evidenced by the Initial test). Two other classes

with other similar subject’s teachers are also chosen.

The number of students in the two classes is at least

20 people. These two classes will be divided into

two groups, namely the treatment group and the

control group. Group assignment is done by random

assignment.

2.2 Instrumentation

The name of this test comes from the name of the

main developer; John Ridley Stroop who published

in 1935 with an article entitled "Studies of

Interference in serial verbal reactions", although the

first publication was done by James McKeen Cattell

and Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt in his doctoral

dissertation research. This test has been used by

many researchers in various fields, until it is

included in the "Citation Classic" which means it has

been quoted more than 160 times since 1966.

Stroop Color-Word Test and all its variations

consist of 3 cards: Word Card (W), Color Card (C)

and Color-Word Card (CW). The word card consists

of a list of words for color (eg red, green, yellow,

blue) printed in black ink; the color card is a

sequence of colors according to the color on the

card; while the word color card is a list of words

printed in a different color to the meaning of the

word (example: red word printed with green ink

color). Subjects are asked to read aloud the color

word (W card), mention the color (card C) and

mention the color of ink writing by heeding the

meaning he said (CW card). The time required to

complete the task is the score of the test.

TWKS rationalization is used for ocus ic d

executive function. The executive function is a

mental process that is central to decision-making,

goal planning and behavioral selection. This process

involves the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex brain area

(DLPFC) and the anterior ocus ic d cortex (ACC).

Brain imaging techniques, including MRI, fMRI and

PET have shown that the main areas involved in the

Stroop test process are the dorsolateral prefrontal

cortex (DLPFC) and anterior ocus ic d cortex (ACC)

areas of the brain. Specifically when both are

activated while resolving task conflicts and

capturing the errors made, the prefrontal dorsolateral

cortex will work to support memory and other

executive functions, while the anterior cortex cursor

is responsible for selecting the appropriate response

and allocating attention.

DLPFC creates rules for the brain in order to

complete the test task. In the Stroop effect, it also

involves areas in the brain involved in color

perception, but not in areas involved in word coding.

Biases and irrelevant information appear, for

example the fact that the 3ocus3ic perception of the

word is more prominent than the printed word. Then

the middle of the DLPFC will select a representation

that will satisfy the task. Relevant information

should be separated from irrelevant information.

Therefore 3ocus is applied to the ink color, rather

than to the word. Furthermore the posterior part of

the ACC will be responsible for the decision made

(whether the answer is right or wrong). After

responding, the anterior part of the ACC will

evaluate the response, whether true or false. The

activity in this area will increase as the error

probability increases.

Stroop test is easy to do. It can be applied to

people start from the age of 6 years to 80 years. The

test officer also requires only a short course of

training because he or she only does little

intervention on the subject.

2.3 Treatment

The experimental treatment in question is the giving

of physical education subject by using BBPEL.

BBPEL is given for 8 meetings (one meeting per

week for two months). It was given in accordance

with the schedule of physical education subjects in

school, for 3x 40 minutes per meeting. The

treatment in the group is the provision of traditional

physical education lesson learning, using direct

teaching strategy: skill-drill-games. Teachers give

examples of specific sports skills, have students

practice those skills and then use them in the game

intact. As with the treatment group, traditional

physical education learning is also provided for 8

meetings (one meeting per week for two months). It

was given in accordance with the schedule of

Improving Students Executive Function through Brain-Based Physical Education Learning

491

physical education subjects in school, for 3x 40

minutes per meeting.

Traditional physical education materials are also

adapted to the 2013 curriculum materials: (1) Big

Ball Game Using Basketball (2 meetings); (2) Big

Ball Game Using Soccer Game (2 meetings); (3)

Small Ball Game Using Cash Game (2 meetings);

(4) Small Ball Game Using Badminton Game (2

meetings).

In order for the implementation of BBPEL

learning model to be treated from this research is

applied well, so that the research is valid, then

validation instrument has been tested by the physical

education expert and has been tested in preliminary

research.

In order for this study not to violate ethics and

human rights, it is done in such a way as to follow

the principles established by the research ethicists.

The researcher refers to the 10 principles of The

Nuremberg Code based on Ethical Issues in

Behavioral Research Basic and Applied

Perspectives, Second Edition by Allan J. Kimmel.

3 RESULTS

Using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test and the

Lavene homogenity test with a 0.05 cut off point it

was found that the research subjects' age, weight and

height were normal and invasive distributed. As for

independent sample T-test, there was no difference

between characteristic of age, body weight and

height between treatment group and invasiv group

(respectively p = 0,105; p = 0,507; p = 0,251).

Table 1: Characteristics of Research Subjects.

Characteristics

Treatment Group

(BBPEL)

n=20

Control Group

(Traditional PE)

n=19

Mean

Age (years)

12,92

0,51463

12,64

0,50

Weight (kg)

49,39

14,98

46,34

13,23

Height (cm)

154,7

8,15

151,47

9,02

Characteristics of research subjects are shown on

table 1. The age difference affects the executive

function, therefore with the nvasive research subject

characteristics in terms of age, weight and height

increases the internal validity of this study.

In addition, for the two intake classes to be

sampled this study is taught by teachers of

mathematics subjects, English and the same nvasive

language. Both classes also received the same

nvasive treatment from the school environment as it

was regarded as the two brightest students' classes at

the school based on the admission nvasive at school

(The subject was in the first year of Junior High

School). The above conditions are expected to have

an equal influence between the two groups in order

to avoid the bias of influence from the academic

environment on student academic achievement after

treatment.

This study is also expected to be followed by all

students in the intact class, but because this research

involves taking a blood sample that is nvasive, then

after the explanation of detail (informed consent) to

students and parents through a classroom teacher

approach; only 20 subjects from each class are

willing to participate. The actual number of students

in one intake class is 30 students each. In order not

to disrupt the natural situation of the learning

environment, then all students still learn together

(not separated) without each other knowing who is

not willing to be the subject of this study.

Table 2: Mean Score of Executive Function Performance.

Variable

Treatment Group

(BBPEL)

n=20

Control group

(Traditional PE)

n=19

Mean

Executive Function Pre

(second)

84,76

16,98

72,57

13,22

Executive Function Post

(second)

67,3

11,26

61,54

9,89

From the table 2 above, we can see that before

treatment, the average ability of the student

executive function in the control group was slightly

better than the students' ability in the BBPEL group

(72.57 seconds, compared with 84.76 seconds).

However, after treatment, the ability of the student

executive function in the BBPEL group was slightly

better (67.3 seconds compared to 61.54 seconds).

Based on the result of statistical descriptive

analysis, it is known that the data of all variables in

each group are homogeneous and normally

distributed (Shapiro-Wilk Normality test p> 0.05

and Lavene homogenity p> 0,05).

Both treatment groups experienced improvement

in executive function of students after getting

physical education for 8 times meeting, p <0.005

with paired sample T-test.

Table 3: Results of Paired Samples Test Results of

Executive Functions Before and After Obtaining BBPEEL

and Traditional PE Learning.

Paired Differences

Sig

(2-tailed)

Pair executive function before

and after treatment on both

groups

Mean

0,000

14,32872

10,03989

0,000

From the table 3 above, taking into account the

results of the executive function of the treatment and

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

492

control group students we can see that the average

initial ability of the control group executive function

is much better than the treatment group. Both have

improved after learning physical education.

However, the final ability of the executive function

in both groups is not very different. Thus it can be

assumed that there is an increase in the higher ability

of executive functions in the treatment group.

Table 4: Comparation of Executive Function Before and

After Treatment Between Groups.

Variable

Treatment Group

(BBPEL)

n=20

Control Group

(Traditional PE)

n=19

Mean

Executive Function Pre

(second)

84,76

16,98

72,57

13,22

Executive Function Post

(second)

67,3

11,26

61,54

9,89

Comparation of executive function before and

after treatment between groups are shown on table 4.

Table 5: Description Variable Gain Score.

Group

Mean

Std. Deviation

Treatment

17,4685

11,71071

control

11,0237

6,74946

Total

14,3287

10,03989

Description variable gain score are shown on

table 5. To examine the difference in executive

function performance between groups by

considering the possibility of influence of initial

condition of group executive function (pretest),

assumption and restriction tests were done in

advance.

There is a reasonable correlation between the

dependent variables (Correlation is called reasonable

i.e. when the positive does not exceed r = 0.90 and

the negative correlation does not exceed r = -0.40

EF_Post with EF_Pre r =, 798 <0.90) Correlation

EF_ with another variable is negative because the

value of EF_ is the time required to complete the

cognitive task that is inversely proportional to the

cognitive abilities shown by other variables.

Furthermore, T test to determine the difference

EF_Pre (Pre performance test results executive

function) between groups.

From the result of T test above, it is concluded

that there is significant difference between pretest of

executive function and both groups (p = 0,017

<0,05). This causes the subsequent analysis to not be

used for the analysis of the variance by using the

pre-test of the executive function as a co-variant,

since assumptions and restrictions are not met

(Owen, 1998; Mayers, 2013; Breukelen, 2006). So

then the ANOVA test is used with gain score. Gain

score is obtained by looking at the performance

improvements that occur in both groups. The

requirement to use gain score calculation is fulfilled

with high correlation between post test result of

executive function with pretest of executive function

(r = 0,798).

The average of executive function improvement

in the treatment group was 17.4685 seconds, while

the average control group increased by 11.0237

seconds.

Table 6: ANOVA Gain Score Pre-Post Test Executive

Function Tests of Between-Subjects Effects.

From result of ANOVA test are shown on table 6

above, the significance 0,043 <0,05, thus H0 is

rejected. In conclusion there is a difference in

performance improvement of executive function

among group of students who follow BBPEL

learning and traditional pela learning.

4 DISCUSSIONS

Executive function has a locus in the prefrontal

cortex circuit. Several studies have demonstrated

activation in the area of the brain that includes the

middle-frontal, superior frontal, superior and inferior

parietal regions of the anterior cingulata speral

cingulata. Physical activity alone activates the brain

area more than the motor area (Davis and

Lambourne, 2009).

Previous research on executive function has

become neurological and neuropsychological

domains, emphasizing the primary function of the

prefrontal cortex in controlling executive processes

and related behaviors. But then there was a shift

along with the build-up of bridges between health

care practitioners and practitioners in the field of

education (Metzler, 2017).

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares

Mean Square

Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

Corrected

Model

404,706

4,371

,043

,106

Intercept

7909,891

85,433

,000

,698

Treatment

Group

404,706

4,371

,043

,106

Error

3425,668

92,586

Total

11837,548

Corrected

Total

3830,374

a. R Squared = ,106 (Adjusted R Squared = ,081)

Improving Students Executive Function through Brain-Based Physical Education Learning

493

The academic success of this digital age is

increasingly related not only to students'

technological skills, but more importantly how they

master goal setting, planning, prioritizing,

organizing and maintaining manipulating

information in shifted working memory (shifting)

with flexible and self-monitoring (self-monitoring /

self-checking); which collectively all these abilities

are considered as executive functions (Metzler,

2017).

This seems to be in line with the philosophy of

the essence of teaching that Joyce and Weil (1996)

has delivered, that the teaching mission of the

teacher is not merely the content of the material, but

teaches students how to learn. For the next ten or

twenty years, material presented by teachers may no

longer be contextual; then what students need is the

ability to learn independently (Joyce and Weil,

1996).

The way to improve executive function is an

area now under study in education through

improvements in teaching strategies to curriculum

adjustments (Metzler, 2017). Implementation of

efforts for a policy approach takes time, especially in

Indonesia. Meanwhile, one way to improve the

executive function that is already present in the

curriculum in Indonesia as one of the compulsory

subjects at every level of the school from

elementary, middle, and even on some courses in

universities; namely the subject of physical

education.

The results of this study indicate a significant

increase in the ability to read Color-Word stroop test

cards in all students who received physical education

BBPEL as well as traditional physical education

(before: 78,8262 ± 16, 28448 seconds; after:

64,4974 ± 10, 87664 sec; p <0,000). The initial test

is done just before the new semester (second

semester) begins, as well as the start of this research

treatment. Previously, the test students do not get

physical education lesson for a month because of the

final exam and the end of semester 1. Therefore, the

given physical education lesson is a new treatment

received by students of that period.

This increase in executive function is already in

line with previous alternatives which show an

improvement in executive function in the sample of

children due to sports treatment, although alternative

measures the ability of its executive function

differently (Tomporowski, 2008). The measurement

with alternative stroop test is theoretically acute

exercise can also improve the results of this test,

such as 20 minutes of moderate intensity running on

the treadmill (Sibley et al., 2006), 30 minutes

cycling (Ferris et al., 2007), 10 minutes cycling. In

learning physical education both BBPEL and

Traditional in this study there is no measurement of

active moving time and the intensity of the sport

objectively; but the syntax of teacher learning and

supervision ensures that students move

intermittently and actively for 3x40 minutes. If the

minimum time active student in accordance with the

research ever done (Wisconsin Department of Public

Instruction, 2011) is 50%, then the assumption of

students moving for 60 minutes and the amount is

quite adequate.

The most noticeable difference between the

student’s management that occurs in the learning of

BBPEL and traditional is how the learning

environment is made in harmony with the nature of

the brain. At BBPEL the atmosphere of the learning

environment is guarded by taking into account the

physiological aspects (paying attention to the

hydration of students by providing a special time

slot for drinking), as well as the psychological

aspects with the creation of a fun, safe, comfortable

yet challenging learning environment.

The comfortable learning atmosphere begins

with a playful accompaniment, this is also intended

to overcome the peripheral attention of the

peripheral, and the use of the ear senses. The BBL

principle states that the brain at the same time can

perform simultaneous jobs, and that in addition to

observing one, simultaneously the brain also noticed

peripheral. Music on BBL facilitates the working

ability of the brain that always wants to be busy

(The brain is a parallel processor, Learning involves

both focused attention and peripheral perception). At

the same time also create a happy atmosphere

(Emotions are critical to patterning). This cheerful

atmosphere is also created with a carefree heating,

moving directly from the beginning of learning.

Another difference to BBPEL with traditional

learning is that in traditional learning, students such

as robots are guided to perform one particular work,

new and should be like that regardless of the initial

conditions of the student's abilities. The teacher will

perform a certain physical motion demonstration,

and then the students are told to imitate and repeat

the physical motion.

In BBPEL, students are expected to learn

through pattern creation (The search for meaning

occurs through "patterning"). From the moment of

warming up, physical motion during heating has

similarity with the core motion that students will

learn at the core of learning. After that the students

will see a teacher demonstration of the physical

motion activity they will learn that day.

Demonstration of the teacher will make students feel

comfortable, rather than purely inquiry teaching,

where direct learning begins with questions.

Demonstrations make students start their own

learning with observation. Observation continued by

observing themselves and their partners during the

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

494

physical movement. After making good observations

when viewing teacher demonstrations and while

doing it alone with friends, students can then assess

the extent of physical movement that they can do.

Students can ask themselves why they cannot do it

yet, or how to do it better. The teacher will provide a

choice of alternative motion exercises that match the

basic motor skills that students can take to answer

the question. The student is then told to try and

reason the physical exercises they choose. Trying

and reasoning is done simultaneously, if it meets

difficulty, it tries to alternate the motion and the end

reaches the final result of how to perform the best

physical motion. The nature of such learning

methods is expected to be in line with the

mechanism of the brain's work, the brain is not

forced to learn something like a robot. We have (at

least) two types of memory systems: spatial and rote

learning The brain understands and remembers best

facts and skills are embedded in natural spatial

memory) (Caine and Caine, 1991).

In learning BBPEL, in addition to making

comfortable with learning physical activity

according to their respective development, at each

post training that can be selected by students there

are challenges to achieve specific targets (Learning

is enhanced by the challenge and inhibited by threat;

Every brain is unique). Challenges and cheerfulness

are also added to semi-competitive games involving

previous physical activity.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The difference in the performance of the executive

function in the BBPEL group is higher than that of

traditional learning groups. Although the aspect of

motor activity itself with the intensity and duration

is not too different, but the complementary aspects

of physical activity is very different. This is

considered that the treatment factor given in this

study is not the same as physical activity in the form

of solid 'exercise training' which is done on a

particular subject as in previous studies. The

physical activity in this study is part of complex

physical education learning. Thus there are other

aspects that will affect the brain activity in general

and the executive function in particular.

REFERENCES

Breukelen, V. G., 2006. Ancova Versus Change From

Baseline: More Power In Randomized Studies, More

Bias In Nonrandomized Studies [Corrected]. Journal

Of Clinical Epidemiology. 2006:59(9):920-5.

Caine, R. M., Caine, G., 1991. Making Connections

Teaching And The Human Brain. Innovative Learning

Publication.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010. The

Association Between School Based Physical Activity,

Including Physical Education, And Academic

Performance, U.S. Department Of Health And Human

Services. Atlanta.

Craig, D., 2003. Brain-Compatible Learning: Principles

And Applications In Athletic Training. Journal Of

Athletic Training. Oct-Dec 2003; 38, 4

Davis, C., Lambourne, K., 2009. Exercise And Cognition

In Children, John Wiley & Sons. Wiltshire. Hlm.249-

268.

Ferris, L. T., Williams, J. S., Shen, C. L., 2007. The Effect

Of Acute Exercise On Serum Brain-Derived

Neurotrophic Factor Levels And Cognitive Function.

Medicine And Science In Sports And Exercise. 39,

728--734.

Hardman, K., Ken, G., Ken, H., 2005. Physical

Education1 In Schools In European Context: Charter

Principles, Promises And Implementation Realities.

Physical Education: Essential Issues. (Hlm.39-64).

London: Sage.

Jensen, A. R., Rohwer, W. D. J., 1966. The Stroop Color-

Word Test: A Review. Acta Psychologica. 25,36-93.

Joyce, B., Weil, M., 1996. Models Of Teaching,

Massachusets. Allyn Bacon.

Mayers, A., 2013. Introduction To Statistics And Spss In

Psychology Paperback. Pearson Education Limited.

Metzler, M., 2017. Instructional models in physical

education. Taylor & Francis.

Owen, S. V., Froman, R. D., 1998. Focus On Qualitative

Methods. Uses And Abuses Of The Analysis Of

Covariance. Research In Nursing & Health. 21, 557–

562.

Sibley, B. A., Etnier, J. L., Le Masurier, G. C., 2006.

Effects Of An Acute Bout Of Exercise On Cognitive

Aspects Of Stroop Performance. Journal Of Sport And

Exercise Psychology. 28, 285--300.

Suherman, A., 2013. Membangun Kualitas Hidup Bangsa

Melalui Pendidikan Jasmani. Pidato Pengukuhan

Sebagai Guru Besar Di Bpu Universitas Pendidikan,

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia. Bandung.

Tomporowski, P., Audiffren, M., 2008. Exercise And

Cognitive Function, John Wiley & Sons. Wiltshire.

Hlm.249-268.

Willis, J., 2008. Building A Bridge From Neuroscience To

The Classroom. Phi Delta Kappan. 89 No. 6 F.

Wisconsin Department Of Public Instruction, 2011. Active

School Kits. Madison.

Improving Students Executive Function through Brain-Based Physical Education Learning

495