Curry and Light
Curry and Light
Curry and Light
on Teaching Sport
and Physical Education
for Understanding
2006
First developed in the early 1980s the past five years have seen a remarkable growth
in interest in Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) to the extent that it can be
seen as an international movement. Over this period there has been a rapidly
expanding number of publications on TGfU and its variants, such as Game Sense,
including books and special issues of international journals devoted to this approach.
The establishment of a series of international conferences on TGfU has made a very
significant contribution to this growth. Beginning with the first conference convened
by Dr Joy Butler in New Hampshire, USA (2001) conferences have since been held in
Melbourne, Australia in 2003, Hong Kong in 2005, and Sydney, Australia in 2006
with the next to be again convened by Dr Joy Butler at The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada in 2008. One of the features of the Melbourne and
Hong Kong conferences was the growth of interest in understanding approaches by
teachers in the Asia and Oceania region.
Scientific Committee
Ross Brooker, University of Tasmania
Wendy Piltz, University of South Australia
Paul Webb, University of Wollongong
Proceedings for the Asia Pacific Conference on Teaching
Sport and Physical Education for Understanding
The papers in this publication were presented at the inaugural Asia Pacific
Conference for Teaching Sport and Physical Education for Understanding held at the
University of Sydney 14-15 December 2006. They draw on work conducted on
Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) and its variants such as Game Sense and
Play Practice across a range of institutional and cultural settings. They include
theoretical papers and reports on empirical research that deal with issues including
children’s affective experiences of physical education, the preparation of pre-service
teachers, practical implementation, coaching in elite level sport and innovative data
collection methods in research on TGfU. They provide valuable insight into the
possibilities offered by exciting new pedagogical approaches for research and
teaching and learning in physical education and sport. The papers are all accessible
and should provide stimulation for teachers, coaches, undergraduate and post graduate
students and researchers working in the area of teaching and learning in sport and
physical education.
I take this opportunity to thank the review team and the staff at the Division of
Professional Learning in the Faculty of Education and Social Work for their fine work
in getting this publication ready and published.
Table of Contents
Developing a sense of the game: Skill, specificity and Game Sense in rugby
coaching………………………………………………………………….…….pp20-31
John Evans, The University of Sydney, Australia
Games For Understanding in Pre Service Teacher Education: A ‘Game for Outcome’
Approach for Enhanced Understanding of Games………………………….…pp32-44
Greg Forrest, Paul Webb and Phil Pearson, University of Wollongong, Australia
Christina Curry
(Post-Graduate student of The University of Sydney, Australia)
Blakehurst High School, Australia
Richard Light
The University of Sydney, Australia
Introduction
The introduction of the ‘NSW Quality Teaching Framework’ (2003a) has had a very
significant impact upon teaching and learning in NSW (New South Wales) public
schools. In NSW the Department of Education and Training (2003c) argues that
recent developments in educational research have shed light on what constitutes
quality teaching and have consequently established a new model for pedagogy in
NSW schools based upon the idea of providing quality teaching (NSW Department
of Education and Training, 2003b). The NSW model of pedagogy focuses on the
teaching practices that research indicates can make the most difference when it
comes to improving student learning outcomes. The emphasis on providing
intellectual quality, a quality learning environment and making the significance of
learning explicit to students provides valuable framework within which teachers can
strive to deliver quality teaching. It does, however, provide a challenge for the
teaching of physical education in a subject area that has a long history of neglecting
the intellectual dimensions of games, sport and other movement (Light, 2002).
While many PDHPE teachers may struggle to deliver quality physical education
teaching within this framework we suggest, as others have (Pearson, Webb &
McKeen, 20005), that Game Sense pedagogy provides an ideal means through
which PDHPE teachers in NSW can address the Quality Teaching Framework in the
teaching of games and sport.
In this paper we address the rationale and main ideas of the quality teaching
framework and provide an overview of the Game Sense approach to games
teaching. We then specifically address the three central concerns of the Quality
Teaching Framework, intellectual quality, providing a quality learning environment
and making the significance of learning explicit to students showing how game
Sense addresses each of these.
In May 2003 the NSW Department of Education and Training released ‘Quality
teaching in NSW public schools’. This was developed as a long-term strategic plan
to support and focus on teaching and learning in NSW public schools. The model
was designed for implementation across all key learning area (KLAs) from
Kindergarten to Year 12. Quality teaching and learning is the result of a long history
of research that has tried to identify teaching practices that improve student
learning. Until recently there was little consensus about quality pedagogy because
of the difficulty in isolating the independent effects of a specific teaching technique
on student learning.
The new NSW PDHPE syllabus provides the opportunity to provide high-quality
learning experiences that can fit in with the Quality Teaching Framework. To
integrate intellectual quality into the PDHPE program, we suggest there is a need to
analyze what the central concepts and ideas are that we want the students to learn
and the relationship/connections between each of these concepts. The dimension of
quality learning environment focuses on the need to make students aware of
expectations, and ensure that they are challenging, but achievable. Students need the
opportunity to exercise some control over what and how they learn. The quality
learning environment focuses on learning, with an emphasis on clarity of what is to
be learned, high expectations and social support. Students demonstrate this through
engagement in learning, self-regulation and self-direction. Because of the nature of
PDHPE the dimension of significance is of great importance, as students need to see
clearly the connections between the learning that takes place in the gym or on the
field and their real world.
Game Sense
There are times in Game Sense when direct teaching of skills is appropriate but
skills can be developed within the framework of the rules and defined spaces and
manipulation of time and space in games. As Kirk and MacPhail (2002) suggest,
tactics and strategies need to be learnt in unison with technique development in
context. Games Sense teachers aim for a student-centered, teacher driven approach
where the teacher acts as the facilitator, is creative and capable of lateral thinking in
constructing learning experiences but limits direct instruction. Within this approach
good questioning is an important aspect that will help guide the students and have
them engage intellectually in the game. Game Sense emphasises the importance of
affiliation (social interaction, making friends), achievement (doing something well
or noticing improvement), and self-direction (opportunities to make choices) as
students desire involvement in sport/games (Werner, Thorpe & Bunker, 1996, p.
32). The focus of Game Sense on the intellectual aspects of games and sport
emphasizes higher order thinking in games such as strategic thinking, problem
solving and decision-making. Teachers can’t achieve intended learning outcomes
and provide Quality teaching and learning if they don’t understand how learning
takes place.
As Forrest, Webb and Pearson (2006) argue, Game Sense is yet to make a
significant impact upon teaching in NSW. As several other researchers have noted
on a larger scale there tends to be resistance from both experienced and beginning
teachers to implement a games sense approach, and this may be due to the fact that
it challenges ‘traditional’ teaching in relation to PE that tends to focus on teaching
skills as the basis of good teaching:
Intellectual Quality is a core feature of Game Sense and its focus on the intellectual
aspects of games distinguishes it from traditional directive, technique-focused
approaches. While the new outcomes based curriculum in NSW sets out clear
expectations students are expected to gain from PE, there is no identification as to
how this can be achieved. The emphasis that Game Sense places on higher order
thinking fits in well with the intellectual Quality of Teaching Framework. Game
Sense encourages higher order thinking in two basic ways. First, it occurs through
the use of language. This occurs in the discussions between students seeking to
solve tactical problems that arise in games and the class reflections upon action that
the teacher encourages with generative questioning during and at the conclusion of
the lesson. As Light and Fawns (2003) argue, thinking also occurs during games in
an embodied way that bypasses language yet communicates meaning between
students. As Light and Fawns suggest, this can be seen a case of the body thinking
as students take in cues, perceive what is happening around them and make a range
of instant decisions in a way that bypasses the conscious mind. As Dewey (1936/86)
suggests, these can be seen as the body’s ‘mindful actions’ in the form of intelligent
movement in games. When the class stops to reflect and discuss, thinking is
expressed through speech where the students are encouraged to develop strategies,
ideas and concepts. This in turn encourages the students to think about the body’s
movement and its relationship to the dynamics of space and time.
Deep knowledge is provided in Game Sense as students must be familiar with the
concepts and key ideas of games and need to be able to apply this knowledge when
playing games. They develop, not only a knowledge of games that can be
articulated but also knowledge at a deeper, embodied level that is expressed in
action within games. Forrest, Webb & Pearson (2006) suggest that deep knowledge
develops over four stages of: 1) Elementary understandings of games within a game
category, 2) elementary understandings of games across game categories, 3)
Advanced understandings of games within game categories, 4) Advanced
understandings of games across game categories. The game categories of invasion,
striking, net wall and target games emphasize the common tactical dimensions of
games within a category. Recognising and understanding the common tactical
concerns that games within categories share suggests that the development of deep
knowledge is significant in the ways that it can be applied beyond the limits of just
the one sport. For example, the long ball used in soccer (football) is a tactic used
when the offensive side has a height advantage in it's the height and aggression of
its attacking players in competing to head the ball in the air. This is the same in
Australian football when forwards compete to ‘mark’ a long high ball in front of
goal. In both cases the time of the ball in the air gives both sides time to contest it.
Some similarities are also evident with the use of a high punt in rugby.
Understanding of common tactical concerns across games would suggest even
deeper and more significant knowledge although these are usually less specific.
Explicit quality criteria forces students to analyze the quality of work they are
producing, and in Game Sense this would include their participation, interaction
within the game/group and the standard of their performance physically, mentally
and socially. The criteria they need to meet would be reinforced throughout the
game. Engagement is ensuring that students are on task and are deeply involved
almost all of the time in the game. This would include physical participation and
intellectual and affective engagement. They would also be seen to take the games
seriously and trying their hardest. High expectations encourage students to take
risks in the games and be recognized for doing so. The games need to be
challenging yet provide opportunities for all students to achieve goals and taste
success which would in turn motivate students to strive for greater success. Social
support would involve supportive behaviours and comments from peers and
teachers. This is met in game sense through praise, teamwork and encouragement of
each other and the opportunity to build collaborative understanding and knowledge.
This needs to involve providing support for reluctant students and ensuring that all
contributions are valued and acknowledged. When the teacher designs the modified
games to be used they typically encourage the inclusion of all players regardless of
ability. Rules such limiting dribbling in basketball to three bounds prevents
individual players dominating. With this rule in place the player in possession is
forced to look for other players to pass to then reposition him/herself to receive
again. In addition to such modifications the use of team talks where players discuss
tactics involves the less physically able students. When the teacher builds a culture
of trust and support among students this further contributes toward the development
of a quality learning environment. Game Sense is ideally suited to the creation of
quality learning environments. The capacity of Game Sense/TGfU to do this is very
evident in Australian research (Chen & Light, 2006; Light & Georgakis, 2005;
Light, 2002). Students’ self-regulation is well met in game sense as it allows
students to demonstrate autonomy and initiative in regulating their own behaviours.
There is little disruption and the teacher can get involved in the game discussions or
encourage students to take ownership. Student direction encourages students in
game sense to determine many of the significant aspects of the lesson or game
independently or can look to the teacher for approval.
Significance: Games taught using a Game Sense approach give students the
opportunity to develop social skills and problem solving abilities that they can use
in life situations where they need to be aware of others and anticipate the actions
and intentions of others. While students learn to be better game players there is also
a wide range of social, affective and intellectual learning and development that
arises from the process of learning in Game Sense. As Light and Fawns (2003)
suggest, learning in Game Sense involves a way of being in the world. The world
involves relations with people, things and places and “students are not just speakers,
writers and thinkers but also doers’ as is the case in the Game Sense lesson (Light &
Fawns, 2003). The NSW Department of Education and Training (2003b) defines
two elements of quality teaching that are highly relevant to Game Sense.
Background Knowledge refers to lessons that regularly and explicitly build from
students’ existing, real life background knowledge in terms of prior school
knowledge, as well as other aspects of their personal lives. The other element of
Connectedness involves learning activities that rely on the application of school
knowledge in real-life contexts or problems, and provide opportunities for students
to share their work with audiences beyond the classroom and school. (p.15). Both of
these elements involve connecting to real-life situations. Background Knowledge is
backward looking and makes connections with previously existing experience or
knowledge. Connectedness is forward looking and makes connections with newly
acquired knowledge or experience.
Game Sense draws on students’ background knowledge of other games they have
played in the past and asks them to draw on this knowledge (and experience) to
solve problems and build upon it as games develop in complexity in the Game
Sense lesson or unit. This includes rules, skills, tactics and previously observed
sport/game interactions, as well as personal significance with the peer group.
Cultural knowledge is recognized in Game Sense, as someone’s culture is not a
determining factor for the success of being involved in a game. Knowledge
integration is ensuring we regularly make connections between topics and subjects
and this is done in a number of ways in Game Sense. We question students about
different strategies needed in games to improve their success. These include Science
and Mathematics, such as speed, direction, velocity, measurement and we draw on
other interaction and social skills that are developed in a number of key learning
areas. There is also considerable significance for day-to-day life. As Light and
Fawns (2003) suggest, games are like life. The tactics, methods of problem solving
and relationships developed in Game Sense lessons apply to social life outside
school. For example, when students gather in groups to develop tactical solutions
for developing a defense in a 5 Vs 3 small-sided game of touch football they are
leaning more than tactical understanding. Hey are also learning how to cooperate,
how to draw on others’ ideas to arrive at collective solutions and how to best
contribute toward a group goal. This is very important and significant social
learning. Not only is there pedagogy for identifying and solving tactical and
technical problems but also for solving moral and interpersonal problems. When
issues of right and wrong arise in games the same collective problem solving,
facilitated by the teacher, can be used to discuss and deal with such problems.
Conclusion
Because Game Sense draws on student experience and knowledge and the learning
is in a larger social and cultural context it is useful and applicable beyond games
and schools in everyday life. Game Sense pedagogy with its student-centred,
inquiry-based approach provides not only relevant and significant knowledge per se,
but also a way of learning how to learn and a way of negotiating the challenges of
social life that confront young people moving into an adult world. Game Sense
generates an increase in expectations as to what it means to be physically educated
to include learning how to learn and how to live in society. PE teachers using the
Game Sense approach will not only be able to meet the requirements of the NSW
Quality Teaching Framework but will also be able to provide high quality learning
experiences for students and make a start toward making physical education a truly
valuable educational experience in NSW schools.
References
Chen. S. & Light, R. (2006). ‘I thought I’d hate cricket but I love it’: Year six
students’ responses to Game Sense. R. Light & C. Pope (Eds) Special issue on
Youth Sport in Australia and New Zealand, Change: Transformations in
Education, 49-58.
Dewey, J. (1936/1986). How we think: a restatement of the relation of reflective
thinking to the educative process. In J. Boydson (Ed.), John Dewey: The later
wworks, 1925-1953, vol 8 (pp. 105-352). Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916/97). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Forrest, G. Webb, P. & Pearson, P. (2006). Teaching Games for Understanding
(TGfU): A model for pre-service teachers. Conference proceedings for
ICHPER 1st Oceania Congress, Wellington, New Zealand, 1-4 October
available at www.penz.org/i/memo_022406.pdf.
Kirk, D. & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated
learning: rethinking the bunker-thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education. 21, 177-192.
Light, R. (2004). Coaches’ experiences of game sense: opportunities and challenges.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 9(2), 115-132.
Light, R. (2002). Engaging the body in learning: promoting cognition ion games
through TGfU. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 49(2), 23-27.
Light, R. & Fawns, R. (2001). The thinking body: constructivist approaches to
games teaching in physical education. Melbourne Studies in Education. 42(2),
69-87.
Light, R. & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: integrating speech and action in
games teaching through TGfU. Quest. 55, 161-176.
Light, R. & Georgakis. (2005). Taking away the scary factor: female pre-service
primary school teachers’ responses to game sense pedagogy in physical
education. Higher Education in a Changing World. 260-266.
Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring
schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2003a). Quality teaching
in NSW public schools: A classroom practice guide. Ryde, NSW: Author.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2003b). Quality teaching
in NSW public schools: A discussion paper. Ryde, NSW: Author.
New South Wales Department of Education and Training. (2003c). Quality teaching
in NSW public schools: An annotated bibliography. Ryde, NSW: Author.
Pearson, P., Webb, P. & McKeen, K. (2005). Linking Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGfU) and Quality Teaching (QT). Proceedings of 3rd
International Conference: Teaching Games for Understanding, Hong Kong,
14-17 December,
Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (2001). The Queensland school
reform longitudinal study final report. Brisbane: Education Queensland.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Werner, P. Thorpe, R. & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding,
evolution of a model. Journal of Physical Education and Dance. 67(1), 28-33.
Developing a sense of the game: Skill, specificity and Game
Sense in rugby coaching.
John Evans
The University of Sydney, Australia
Introduction
Great players of any sport typically have a ‘sense of the game’ (Light, 2003). They
invariably seem to be in the right place at the right time and make the right decisions.
Are they born with this ‘sense of the game’ or do they learn it? If so, where and how
do they learn it? Coaches typically suggest that this is something a few lucky players
are born with and which cannot be ‘coached’. While physical capacities such as
strength and speed are important for rugby players and can be developed through
strength and conditioning programs, however, this sense of the game is certainly more
difficult to engender. It can, however, be encouraged or enhanced. As some
researchers in the field of sport and physical education pedagogy argue, while it
cannot be directly coached but it can be developed through the provision of suitable
environments in training that can embed, over time, the enacted knowledge of the
game needed for high-level team sport (Light, 2003; Light & Fawns, 2003).
Traditionally, young children in Australia have developed much of their skills and
understandings of rugby and other sports through the range of informal games they
play well before they are exposed to formal, structured coaching (Dwyer, 2004). The
ideas of John Dewey (1916/97), the foremost educational theorist of the twentieth
century, also suggest that it is the structuring of the learning environment through
which the most effective and comprehensive learning takes place and not through any
direct instruction. It is not through the drilling of isolated technique that complete
players develop but through their engagement in games of varying types. It is through
a life of intellectual, physical and emotional engagement in games that rugby players
develop what Bourdieu (1977), describes as “le sense pratique”; a practical feel for
the game.
In this paper I argue for the use of the Game Sense approach to develop complete
players who are attuned, physically, mentally and emotionally, to the game and its
conditions. I identify and discuss what I feel are the particular strengths of Game
Sense for coaching in rugby. In particular I point out how Game Sense relates well to
the two common concerns of skill and specificity of training used in contemporary
approaches to the preparation of sports teams, in particular rugby teams. This paper
discusses the role of Games Sense as a way for rugby coaches to build on the
important learning that arises from early experiences of games to motivate players
and develop intelligent play needed in complex games such as rugby.
I write this paper from the perspective of an experienced rugby coach and former
player, and a beginning researcher working in the field of sport pedagogy. Drawing
on past practical experience in rugby and a developing knowledge of player centred
constructivist approaches to coaching I strive in this paper to express my current
desire to move towards constructivist approaches such as in Game Sense. I was first
exposed to the ideas of Game Sense through a long conversation with Dr Richard
Light on a car trip in Melbourne in 2003. While the ideas and concepts of Game
Sense challenged my long established ideas about rugby coaching they stimulated
considerable critical thinking on my part about my coaching. Now, a year into a PhD
on elite level rugby and Game Sense I am excited by a growing understanding of what
is possible with Game Sense yet challenged by some of the practical problems that
face its application at elite levels of rugby. While I have adopted somewhat of a
reflective approach in the paper it also draws on research that I conducted in 2005
with elite rugby and their uptake and use of Game Sense (Evans, 2005).
In Game Sense all games are organised within 4 categories according to their
common tactical dimensions. The four broad groups are target games, net and wall
games, striking games and invasion games (den Duyn, 1997). Games within these
categories do not necessarily share common technique but do share common tactical
problems meaning that there is a transfer of tactical and strategic knowledge from one
game to another within each category. For example soccer, hockey and rugby are
classified as invasion games for the purpose of teaching tactical and strategic
requirements. Game Sense employs the use of questions to elucidate understanding
from players and discourages coaches from being directive in their approach. The
questioning engages players and encourages discussion or both tactics and skill and is
not seen as separate aspects of games.
The use of Game Sense or Teaching Games for Understanding by coaches may, as
Light (2004) proposes, produce more complete players than is possible by using a
technique approach. Its application is not limited to novices, (Kirk & MacPhail,
2000). As Rick Charlesworth coach of the Australian National Women’s hockey
states, “the Game Sense approach is relevant to the ongoing development of elite
players”.
Skill
The use of the term skill to describe a performance in a training session is not always
consistent with its true meaning. What is accepted as skill development in a training
session may in fact be technique. The difference between skill and technique is not
always evident in the selection of methods used by coaches. Skill involves more than
just the replication bodily movements. This paper refocuses attention on the area of
skill using previous descriptions used in motor behaviour and skill acquisition
approaches and aligns it with the application of Games Sense.
Skill and technique are often used interchangeably by coaches but they are distinctly
different. Simply put, skill is equal to technique performed under pressure. Skilled
execution is a result of learning that has occurred through the student or players’
engagement in practice (Magill, 2004). Magill describes learning as:
Although Magill approaches this from a skill acquisition point he recognises the role
of practice and experience in the change process. Dewey, (1916/97 p.66) commented
when focusing on skills in teaching, makes a similar point “a monotonously uniform
exercise may by practice give great skill in one special act, but this skill is limited to
the act.” This provides an opportunity to examine the way in we teach and in doing so
provides an opportunity to examine coaching as it is closely linked to teaching.
Dewey’s comment helps explain the frustration of coaches who say, “we practised
that for hours but they can’t do it in a game”. This “inertia” or “welded knowledge”
that results from the traditional practices of teaching and coaching prevents the
application of skills in real situations (Herrington & Oliver, 2000). The way in which
players embody knowledge and understanding is closely linked to the type of practice
and experience they are exposed to at training sessions.
Skill becomes, not just the replication of bodily movements, but also the ability to
perform it in the context of game pressure that encompasses strategies, tactics and
decision-making. The Game Sense pedagogy, as previously discussed, is an approach
where skill and tactics are developed and enhanced contextually or embedded in situ
within the game (Brooker & Abbott, 2001; Bunker & Thorpe, 1982, 1986). The use of
Game Sense approaches to coaching overcomes problems of the technique approach
as it embodies learning within an authentic or realistic setting. Players have a greater
ability to perform a skill used in games because it is learnt and practised in a similar
dynamic environment under some degree of pressure.
Specificity
Specificity is one of the terms often used by coaches in discussions about the physical
preparation of rugby players and typically in relation to the physical conditioning of
players. In this section, however, I appropriate the term to apply to the pedagogy of
Game Sense. I argue here that drilling skills and working on patterns of play out of
the context of the game lack specificity to their application in the real game. By
placing most training within modified games or game-like contexts Game Sense
develops skills that are contextualised while, at the same time, develops tactical
knowledge and decision-making. That is to say that the closer training is to the actual
game the better rugby players will perform in the game. Game Sense is a tool that can
facilitate this area of training for rugby players.
Specificity has been closely associated with strength and conditioning where the
proposition is that training should reflect the movement patterns and energy systems
that will be experienced in the event or game. Tudor Bompa, the Canadian
physiologist made the following statement in respect to the preparation of players and
athletes:
The degree to which an athlete adapts or learns is related to the demands placed on
the athlete in training (Baechle & Earle, 2000). These definitions open the door to
question the extent to which coaching methods have been employed that reflects a
true representation of the game. Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) was first
proposed by Bunker and Thorpe (1982) as response to the poor transfer of skills from
the practice environment to real games. Indeed, Bunker & Thorpe (1996) discussed
the issue of poor transfer from training to the game using rugby as an example. The
implication for coaches is the question of how the conditions experienced by players
in a game can be replicated in training. Game pressure and game conditions become
the focus in addressing specificity. By placing the development of skills within game-
like situations Game Sense reproduces, to varying degrees, the conditions of the game
while also developing understanding of the game, informed decision-making and a
range of other aspects of the game such as communication.
The Benefits of Game Sense
In this section I outline what I feel are some major strengths of the Game Sense
approach in terms of skill development and specificity of training to the game. These
are: the transfer from practice to game, working off the ball and player motivation.
Motivation
There is little doubt that positive affective states are beneficial for learning whether in
school physical education or in elite level rugby training. As coaches in Light’s
(2004) study of Australian Game Sense coaches suggest, the use of games for training
in Game Sense makes training more interesting and makes players more enthusiastic.
Games-based training is not only better reproduces game conditions for transfer than
a technical approach but also motivates players better. Through my own experience as
a coach I have been concerned with player apathy during drills and have sought to
make training more like a game with increased complexity, decision-making,
communication and enthusiasm. A significant body of research conducted in Australia
indicates that such approaches are more motivating and fun for learners from primary
school children to pre-service teachers (for example see, Light & Georgakis, (2005)
Chen & Light, (2006). Technique based training can also be boring and repetitive for
rugby players whereas Game Sense has the capacity to engage and motivate them.
This intrinsic style of motivation has the effect of galvanising players and creating a
sense of ownership as well as being more like the real game. Modified games are
motivating because they are close to the real game. As a coach in Light’s (2004) study
suggests, the closer training is to the game the more motivated the players are and the
more repetition there is the more a particular skill can be developed but at the cost of
lower player motivation. As he suggests, Game Sense can focus on a particular skill
through the design of the game to develop it while maintaining motivation through
using games. In Game Sense meaningful skill is developed while providing
motivation due to its specificity to the game.
Challenges of Implementing Game Sense
There is, as described by Light (2004b), a perception by some coaches that there is an
absence of learning in Game Sense approaches and that its just about playing games.
More specifically, they misinterpreted Game Sense as neglecting the development of
skill by concentrating exclusively on tactics and decision-making. The reticence of
coaches to implement Game Sense may be a reflection of their beliefs about learning
as a linear process where players’ process information handed to them by the coach
and then can act it out in a game. Learning is not this simple. It is a far more complex
process. In order for coaches to adopt a Game Sense framework they need to
appreciate that learning occurs through a number of mediums (Davis, Sumara, &
Luce-Kapler, 2000). The change in understanding may also need an accompanying
shift in the sharing of power and decision making in favour of the players (Light,
2004b).
In a well ordered technical session training appears organised and controlled. One of
the challenges with the use Game Sense is that it can sometimes appear messy and
disjointed (Light, 2004a, 2004b). It takes some time to see improvement in player’s
performance but arguably these improvements are long term due to the implicit nature
of learning. Coaches make decisions on which approach they take based on external
perceptions and the need to appear effective and efficient (Light, 2004b). There is also
external pressure on coaches especially when results in terms of winning are
paramount. In these situations coaches tend to adhere to tried and tested approaches
(Cassidy, Jones, & Potrac, 2004; Light, 2004a, 2004b; Lyle, 2002). This pressure may
stifle the implementation of innovation in favour of an acceptable traditional
approach.
Conclusion
The goal of coaching in rugby should be to produce players that are highly skilful,
who have the capacity to make decisions and who have a level of expertise
commensurate with their age and ability. Specificity is the key to high performance
training and Game Sense offers an opportunity to design training for rugby in terms of
movement patterns, intellectual engagement and the physiological development of
energy systems specific to the game. In other words, coaches need the ability to
design modified games that reproduce some of the conditions and pressure that would
be experienced in the environment of a competitive rugby match. This
contextualisation of training through the use of Game Sense ensures that a level of
specificity and pressure exists which leads to skilful performance.
In order for coaches to implement Game Sense there needs to be a shift in their
perception of their role and position in relation to the players. That is to say that
coaches need to be facilitators of learning who set productive environments within
which players can learn and develop a sense of the game instead of instructors
directing and controlling training. Players cannot develop problem solving ability,
embodied understanding and immediate skill responses to the dynamics of games
without experience of learning within game-like situations. To date the bulk of rugby
coaching and the development of elite players has focused primarily on the sciences
of coaching and the science of conditioning with little attention paid to how athletes
learn (Woodman, 1989). Recent criticism of the Wallabies’ play as being robotic,
predictable and lacking spontaneity suggests that approaches such as Game Sense
have something to offer rugby from this level down to community-based junior rugby.
References
This paper will firstly summarise the theoretical underpinnings of the model, secondly
examine impediments to its effective use for pre service teachers and those
inexperienced with games and lastly expand on an interpretation of the approach
where the practitioner applies a combination of primary rule and game progressions to
an initial game for outcome to allow the development of an elementary understanding
of the principles, techniques, strategies and rules required to play that game. The
approach has the capacity to allow these inexperienced practitioners, irrespective of
their games ability, to apply, analyse and evaluate all games concepts through both
play and observation through a familiar and repeatable learning format
TGfU, Game Sense and Traditional Games Teaching
TGfU is known almost exclusively in NSW as ‘Game Sense’ and was developed
through a series of workshops on the evolution of the TGfU model in the mid nineties
(Webb, Thompson, 1998). It takes a more conceptual and constructivist approach to
the traditional or technique based method used to teach games, which has been used
extensively as a teaching method in New South Wales over the last forty years (DET,
1965, BOS, 1980, BOS 1991). The framework of the technical approach follows a set
format; a warm up is followed by a series of drills practicing technique and game
patterns, ranging from simple to more complex which is then followed by the actual
‘adult version ‘of the ‘game’ (Werner, Bunker, Thorpe, 1996, Hopper 2001). With the
teacher providing directed feedback based aspects of game play and technique, it is
expected that there will be a positive transfer or application of the technique practices
to the game being played, allowing students to understand the game, (Werner,
Bunker, Thorpe, 1996). Those critical of this approach suggest that the approach is
behaviourist in nature, decontextualises techniques from the game itself, can develop
technically adept players who have poor game skills or encourage the belief that if
students do not have the appropriate technical skills they will not be able to play the
game (Werner, Bunker, Thorpe, 1996, Lauder, 2001, Hopper and Bell, 2001). The
teacher centred nature of the approach can also leave students with little game
knowledge or dependent on the teacher to make decisions for them (Werner, Bunker,
Thorpe, 1996).
TGfU and the Game Sense variation are game centred approaches which use a series
of modified games, small sided, full sided or games for outcomes, to develop an
appreciation and understanding of the game itself. Questions are asked of the
participants and scenarios are created that require players to think of and apply,
through movement, possible solutions to the questions about game situations. These
solutions can continually be examined and re examined in different game contexts
and strategies (pre game plans) and tactics (adaptations to strategy during the game)
can be developed and implemented before and during game play at a team, sub team
and individual level, all of which enhance the learning experience of those in the class
(Gréhaighne, Richard and Griffin, 2005). The approach is more student-centred and
allows participants to apply their own understanding of games to the learning tasks in
an environment that is motivating and stimulating. Technique should never be ignored
but examined and developed when the students see the relevance and the need for it
within the overall game context. Thus the approach is more holistic in intent and
practice than the traditional method.
A key component of Game Sense and TGfU is the division of games into categories
and in the case of invasion games listed in the Table 1. These allow the practitioner to
group games together to develop common themes around which questions related to
strategy, tactics and decision-making could be based. However, it is important to note
that there are common principles for each of the games, listed in the Table 2, which
should be considered in conjunction with the categories. These give the students and
teacher a sound base from which to develop understanding of game categories and
areas to begin their initial development of questions. Mitchell (2005) also suggests
users can develop a framework in which to operate in relation to the categories,
through which students can try to achieve the principles of play, irrespective of which
in category game they are playing, allowing lessons to have a greater intellectual
quality.
While there has been research into the effectiveness of the game based or tactical
approach compared with the technical approach, evidence of the superiority of one
approach over the other in regard to game performance has been inconclusive
(Gréhaighne, Richard and Griffin, 2005). A series of studies comparing the two
models (French Werner et al 1996a, French, Werner et al 1996b, Turner and Martinek
1999, Harrison, Blakemore et al 2004,) based mainly on skill development and
cognitive ability, found no significant difference in the areas measured between the
groups using either method. However, research conducted by Thomas (1997, cited in
Pearson, Webb and McKeen 2005a), Light (2003) and Light and Georgakis (2005)
consistently found that the TGfU approach engendered greater enjoyment and
empowerment, increased engagement and increased physical activity levels in
participants. Gréhaigne, Richard and Griffin (2005) also site an unpublished study
comparing game performance between two groups using the tactical and the technical
approach over a 12 week period in basketball, which found that game performance
was maintained or improved in the tactical group while the technical group’s declined
slightly while also determining that after six months of no activity or instruction in the
game, the tactical groups performance decline was less than the technical in the
particular game.
TGfU and Game Sense Limitations
The ability to use the TGfU and Game Sense approach requires considerable
pedagogical skill (Light & Georgakis, 2005) but we suggest that it also requires those
using the approach to have a broad perspective and deep understanding of games, an
ability to develop and ask appropriate questions at the appropriate learning moment,
the ability to determine and select appropriate game forms to develop game
understanding and the selection of modified games that truly parallel the actual game
(Chandler, 1996, Light & Georgakis, 2005, Howarth, 2005, Turner, 2005). Linked
with these factors is the development of observational and management skills to
initiate and manage dialogue between participants and the teacher and between the
participants themselves, which advocates for the TGfU approach see as a fundamental
strength of the tactical approach and ‘a key pedagogical tool for the TGfU
practitioner’ (Turner, 2005, p.82) which can be overwhelming for the pre service
teacher (Howarth, 2005, p93). Howarth (2005) also suggests that the move from
teacher centred to student centred is also very difficult, creating a ‘cognitive
dissonance’ (p102) until the user feels more comfortable with the model. Forrest,
Webb and Pearson (2006) suggest that if pre service teacher education programs and
professional development programs about TGfU and Game Sense do not develop
games programs that allow participants to develop skills in these areas, the approach
may be misinterpreted as simply ‘game – practice-game’ (Turner, 2005) and runs the
risk of being devalued as a pedagogical method. Piltz (2004) and Howarth (2005) also
suggest that teachers new to games education often lack the observational skills
needed to develop questions and may develop a questioning protocol for the lesson
that results in an IRE discourse or a ‘debate of ideas’, so essential for the games
centred approach, that is closed and shallow and may result in students leaving the
TGfU or Game Sense lesson with no greater understanding of the game than when
they entered (Forrest, Webb, Pearson, 2006; Gréhaigne & Godbout, cited in
Gréhaigne, Richard & Griffin, 2005). Similar issues will also exist if the pre service
or novice teacher simply follows the questions produced in some articles on TGfU
without the appropriate observational skills or game understanding to understand
where the questions were derived from and then has an expectation that the answers
produced by the articles as the ‘correct’ ones. This then becomes a very teacher
centred and behaviourist approach again, the very thing that those proposing the use
of TGfU and Game Sense are trying to move away from.
A ‘Game for Outcome’ Approach for Games Education
The use of a game for outcome as the basis of a games unit has the capacity to apply a
games centred philosophy to teaching and can address many of the limitations novice
and pre service teachers may confront when trying to implement a games based
approach such as TGfU and Games Sense. It alleviates the need for the practitioner to
develop a variety of modified games or feel the need to invent a large amount of new
games but, more importantly, gives both the practitioner and the students involved a
common and repeatable base for both play and observation. It acts like a template or a
learning framework which students can become familiar with, just like an exercise
book in class or a canvas for an artist. This removes the need to for those playing to
constantly learn new modified games, which may impact on their opportunities to
firstly understand and respond to questions and secondly develop a deeper
understanding of the games themselves. It also allows pre service teachers or novices
to develop a consistent ‘observation template’ on which to develop their questions for
discourse with their students, a feature often needing attention in inexperienced
teachers (Piltz, 2004). The game can then be ‘progressed’ towards a specific sport in
an empirically constructivist manner, by the manipulation of the primary rules of the
sport, those rules that supply the actual game with its essential character (Gréhaigne,
Richard & Griffin, 2005). A variety of challenges can be set for all players, regardless
of ability in the game context, through methods such as manipulation of team
numbers or the changing of conditions, allowing a constantly engaging, motivating
and challenging environment for the students. Using this approach, students can gain
an understanding of all of the different components that are part of the make up of a
game and teachers can use the context to develop appropriate questions on these
areas.
The ‘Game for Outcome’ approach was used with second year students in the pre-
service Physical Education and Health teacher education program at the University of
Wollongong in a practical studies unit on basketball/netball. These two sports
classified as a small focus target invasion game (Gréhaigne, Richard & Griffin, 2005)
and have a number of areas in which to draw comparisons and contrasts. In the initial
game, the team in possession had to complete ten passes without interruption from the
team without possession. The game was conducted within the third of a netball court
and initial rules were established for safety through questioning, such as those in
relation to physical contact and boundaries. Once the group established these, the
game began. Students were also able to focus on the performance of both the team
with possession (with and without the ball) and the team without possession, through
observation from the sidelines, borrowing directly from Wendy Piltz’s excellent
observational cards, which she used for Level Three coaches (Piltz, 2004). The
purpose of this was to allow them to begin developing sound game observation
practices from which they could, as practitioners, develop their questioning skills and
protocols as well as to enhance their understanding of netball and basketball. Special
focus for players and observers was initially on whether there were common
principles for the team in possession and the team without possession to achieve the
game outcome. Students were able to repeat the game easily, allowing them to focus
on trying to find solutions or create ‘action plans’ or strategies in a familiar
environment (Gréhaigne, Richard & Griffin, 2005) to achieve the game outcome.
Through the use of questioning and debate, it was established that to achieve its goal
of ten passes, the team in possession must do the following:
Through continued dialogue and observation, other game components were noted as
particularly important in game play, especially the notion of change or transition, the
ability to switch from team possession mode (which was now to be called ‘attack’) to
team non-possession mode (which was now to be called ‘defence’) quickly and the
advantage of using the whole court.
Students then were to develop, through play and observation, a variety of strategies
(plans developed before the game play) to achieve the game’s outcome, based on their
more complete observations and the strategic and tactical responses of the opposition.
Other areas such as communication, player roles within a team, decision-making and
reading of movement cues were also examined in the game context by the students
(both as players and observers), further adding to the complexity of observation of
play, of the play itself and to the areas from which they could derive questions.
Progression began toward the actual sports through the introduction of the
fundamental primary rule associated with basketball and netball games, movement
when in possession of the ball. Indeed, the generic game revealed many assumptions
by the players regarding movement (or lack of), especially when in possession,
allowing the students to examine what meanings they were bringing to the game and
when, where and how these meanings were constructed. Through such an
examination and student debate, the primary rules for movement both netball and
basketball were developed and implemented into the initial game. The students now
had two more aspects to consider when developing strategic and tactical response as
players and their questioning protocol as practitioners. In essence, two separate but
similar games were established, one with dribbling, one without, but still based in the
same initial framework, allowing students as players and observers to examine the
impact these rules had on the application of the essential principles of attack and
defence in the game for both games, their decision-making in relation to these
strategies and on other areas previously mentioned such as technique, communication
and cognition.
There were a variety of progressions and directions that could be taken from this
initial variation of the game, such as changing the mode of scoring and manipulating
the size and height of the target to score in, using a hoop placed on the ground. Attack
and defence principles can then be re-examined in light of the impact a small target
goal has on scoring and preventing scoring and on the strategies and tactics associated
with this. This can then over-emphasised by the use of two goals for each team, one in
each corner, still within the same initial structure, allowing again for the refinement of
previous strategies and increased opportunity of observation opportunities, giving
students a wide range of opportunities to further improve their game and
observational skills, broaden their view of the game and the variety on influences on
game play and giving further depth to their questioning protocol. A further addition to
the now more complex game, such as a third primary rule of netball, that of
obstruction, can allow further contrasts to be drawn between netball and basketball
such as examining how the ability to dribble, combined with no specific ‘obstruction’
rules created differing scenarios for both players and observers in relation to the
impact on all aspects of playing the game. However, the structure and foundations of
the initial game still remain intact, preserving the fundamental conditions and
understandings.
The process can be continued until all primary rules are included examining the
impact they have on all areas observed previously to determine the effect they have
on the implementation of these aspects. Both players and observers are able to
construct a large data bank of applied knowledge to have a number of areas to
develop their question protocols on. This gave them a sound basis from which to
develop a games based approach to the teaching of basketball and netball and
incorporate the principles of TGfU and Game Sense in their lessons.
Feedback from students who participated in the unit and used the method in practical
teaching was very positive but further research will be needed to determine the
strengths and weaknesses of the approach in its effectiveness as a method for pre
service teachers in developing game understanding and questioning skills, especially
around the quality of the dialogue between teacher and game participants and
between the participants themselves.
Conclusion
The use of Game Sense and TGfU has a variety of benefits for both the practitioner
and the participants because of its pedagogical and motivational advantages over the
traditional approach and its ability to incorporate technique development in a more
meaningful and relevant context. However, limitations in a practitioner’s
observational skills, their ability to select appropriate games and facilitate in-depth
dialogue can actually negate these benefits. The use of a game for outcome approach
with progressions based on primary rules and the principles of play, as a variation of
TGfU and Game Sense allows pre service teachers and novice teachers to observe
player responses to these progressions and challenges in a consistent and repeatable
game environment removing the need for a multitude of small game variations while
giving them a solid foundation from which to develop productive questioning and
dialogue. Although its application was only demonstrated in invasion games in this
paper we suggest that the approach has the potential to be used within, and across,
game categories to develop improved pedagogical practice for pre service and novice
teachers who wish to use a games centred approach model for teaching games.
Turner, A,P. (2005). Teaching games for understanding at the secondary level. In
Griffin, L. Butler, J.(2005). Teaching Games for Understanding. Theory,
Research and Practice. (pp 71 – 89). Human Kinetics, Illinois
Turner, A.P., & Martinek, A. (1999). An Investigation into Teaching Games for
Understanding: Effects on Skills, Knowledge and Game Play. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70 (3), 286 – 296
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996) Teaching games for understanding:
evolution of a model. The Journal of Physical Education Recreation and
Dance, 67 (1), 28 – 33.
Webb, P., Pearson, P., & Forrest, G., (2006). The Game Centred Approach in Primary
and Secondary Education. University of Wollongong, Australia. Proceedings
of 1st ICPHER.SD Oceania Conference, Wellington, New Zealand
Webb, P., & Thompson, C. (1998). Developing Thinking Players. Games Sense in
Coaching and Teaching. In Sports Coach 1998: 1998 National Coaching and
Officiating Conference, 25-28 November 1998, Melbourne Convention
Centre, Victoria, Unpublished Papers, Australian Coaching Council,
Australian Sports Commission, 2, 610-613.
From Drills to Skills to Game Sense: The Meta-cognitive
Revolution in Physical Education
Steve Georgakis
The University of Sydney, Australia
Introduction
Over the last ten years Game Sense has generated considerable research attention in
Australia and is now beginning to generate interest from teachers and schools. These
are exciting and promising developments in an approach that Light and Fawns (2003)
argue has the potential to reconceptualise the practice of physical education and its
place in the school curriculum. What has not yet been been recognized in the
literature, however, is the way in which the rise of Game Sense has highlighted the
importance of pedagogy in physical education. Up until the arrival of Game Sense in
Australia issues related to learning theory and meta-cognitive debates which
characterized other learning areas did not manifest themselves in physical education
debates. Metacognition, an awareness and understanding one’s thinking and cognitive
processes, that is thinking about thinking, did not particular interest physical
education scholars (Carruthers & Chamberlain, 2000; Metcalfe, 1998). In the
seventies there was some debate over different teaching styles arising from the work
of Mosston (1966, 1986) but the issue of pedagogy in physical education did not
receive any significant attention until the emergence of new pedagogies that drove
approaches to physical education such as TGfU (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982), Game
Sense (den Duyn, 1997) and Sport Education (Seidentop 1994), known in Australia as
SEPEP (Sport Education and Physical Education Program). Up until these
developments debate over the teaching of physical education had been more
concerned with what to teach rather than how to teach and how students actually
learn. This phenomenon is clearly seen by reading the ACHPER Healthy Lifestyle
Journal, formerly Journal of Australian Physical Education, which has run
uninterrupted since 1956.
The virtual explosion of research and writing on pedagogy in physical education over
the past decade is a long overdue and a welcome development (Kirk & MacPhail,
2002; Light & Fawns, 2001, 2003; Light & Georgakis, 2005). Historically the subject
was looked down upon by academics, who may have had an interest in sport, but
deemed physical education not worthy of scholarship. This development is in itself is
noteworthy enough, but what is equally significant is the fact that for the first time in
the history of physical education, teacher preparation programs in NSW, such as at
the Universities of Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle have taken a proactive lead in
the developments of teaching physical education rather than a reactive response to
developments in schools. Within the PDHPE key learning area, the teaching of
physical education is now being increasingly guided by the idea of pedagogy and
concerns with how and what children and young people learn through movement. In
fact the Year 7-10 PDHPE curriculum which was adopted in 2003 has been
influenced by tertiary educators and Game Sense forms an important part of it (NSW
PDHPE 7-10 Syllabus, 2003). Another striking example in the last few years has been
the proliferation of practical Game Sense workshops, administered by tertiary
educators, either through their home Universities or through organisations such as
ACHPER to encourage practicing teachers, who may have not been exposed to it,
become familiar with the approach. These workshops were well attended and the
outcome was that these teachers would use the pedagogy back in their home schools.
From a historical perspective this paper argues that it has only been since the
development of Game Sense in Australia that this interest in pedagogy most clearly
emerged and prior to this very little research focused on pedagogy. The work of
Australian researchers such as Light (Light, 2002a; Light & Fawns, 2001, 2003; Light
& Butler 2005) and Brooker (eg Brooker, Kirk, Braiuka, & Bransgrove 2000; Griffin,
Brooker & Patton, 2005), has begun to move physical education into the mainstream
school curriculum and into educational debates about schooling, teaching and
learning. Although, traditionally, physical education has been located ‘outside’ the
academic curriculum as a non-academic subject the development of research in
physical education on the application of contemporary learning theory to movement
identifies the important learning that take place, and can take place, within physical
education. This paper traces the increase in attention being paid to pedagogy in
physical education teacher education programs in NSW within the context of long
term changes in the focus of such programs. These changes can be seen as a move
from military drills to a focus on sport skills in the post WWII period up to the
development of concern with pedagogy arising from Game Sense focusing on the
University of Sydney as an example.
The teaching of physical education in NSW primary and secondary schools has been
greatly affected by developments at the University of Sydney. Up until the
establishment of a physical education diploma at the Kuringai College of Advanced
Education in 1979, the University of Sydney was the only teacher training institution
and thus the only provider of physical education graduates in Sydney. It is therefore
timely to look back into history and highlight the various themes which have
characterised the teaching of physical education at the University of Sydney because
ultimately most teachers in the school system had passed through this institution. It is
also timely because this year marks the one hundredth anniversary of the teaching of
physical education at the tertiary level in NSW.
Using the example of the University of Sydney this paper outlines the historical
themes that have influenced Australian physical education teacher training education.
There have been studies (Moutray, 1973; Fisher 1999) which have looked at the
history of the various physical education programs in Australia, although they have
been silent on pedagogy. These studies focused on the politics behind physical
education development and the various pioneers. While they have documented some
very important information, they have failed to give any treatment to what was
actually being taught. This is surprising when one considers how other marginalized
curriculum areas, such as Drama, have given some treatment to pedagogy (Anderson,
2003). This paper argues that three clear themes prevailed. Firstly from 1906 until the
start of World War II, military gymnastic type drill was dominant; this was followed
by a period where skill type instruction prevailed. In the last ten years or so has been
characterized by the emergence of Game Sense pedagogy.
Drills
The teaching of physical education at the tertiary level dates back to the first year of
the establishment of the Sydney Teachers College at the University of Sydney in
1906. While the teaching of physical education was not widespread in the public
school system, it was mandated in all programs of the Teachers College. When it first
opened the Teachers College only offered programs in lower primary (kindergarten)
and primary. In fact one hour per week for thirteen was given to the subject. It must
be noted though that physical education in this period was referred to as ‘physical
training’ and in the various Teachers College handbooks exist outlines illustrating the
content of the various subjects. Physical training consisted of physical drills and
included “Squad drills. Squad drill with intervals, in single rank and in two ranks”
(STC, 1908). The prescribed textbook was the English Board of Education (1909) text
titled Syllabus of Physical Training for Schools. While there were a number of later
editions, this text substantially stayed unchanged (1919, 1927, and 1933). For almost
fifty years Teachers College students would be drilled using this text.
It has been noted by Kirk (1994, 1998), and others such as Crawford (1981) and
Young (1939), that school physical education was militaristic and for the most part it
was administered by the military. Military drill had been introduced into public
schools, primarily as a defence measure. The Crimean and Franco-Prussian Wars
made New South Wales aware of their complete dependence upon Britain for military
defence. Attempts were made to establish a military force and the schools were
included in the scheme. Instructors were appointed from the military to drill students.
In 1871 it was noted:
The introduction of military drill into our schools during the year cannot fail to
raise the character of the order. Already the schools visited by the Drill
Instructors begin to show a more even and a more healthy discipline; and as
arrangements are in progress to extend the course of drill to as many schools as
possible, substantial benefits may be expected to result from this measure
(Annual Report, His Majesty’s Inspectors of Schools, 1871, p.4).
These comments of the inspectors proved ill-founded and the drill system was to
impede the progress of physical education in schools for almost seventy years. These
militaristic foundations also influenced physical culture classes at the Teachers
College; and all classes were taken by men with a distinguished military background.
Before World War I two men were responsible for these classes: Lieutenant-Colonel
Paul and Major F.J. Anderson. In 1921 Major Albert Cooke-Russell became head of
physical culture and dominated all aspects of the subject until his retirement in 1936.
Major Cooke-Russell became an institution not only in the Teachers College but also
in the wider community. He had served in Egypt, Pretoria and later the Sudan
(receiving a DCM in 1898). In 1899 he served in the Boer War and later in World
War I after which he picked up the job at Sydney Teachers College (Interview Albert
Mason, September 2006). He also spent much of his time getting teachers he
perceived as unfit into shape and extra classes were organised by Major Cooke-
Russell. In 1922 Eva Redfern teacher of physical culture at Sydney Girls, became the
first female lecturer and taught for a number of years primarily working with the
females. Between 1906 and 1939, while there was no physical education specialist
teacher-training course as such, military drill prevailed and served no real educational
value and its position in the school curriculum was always questioned.
Students at the Teachers College were drilled on the tennis courts and strength and
conditioning activities also took place in the gymnasium which was established in
1924 and was complete with sprung floor and separate dressing and bathrooms for
men and women. There were specific instructions issued for dress during class and
women were, “required to provide themselves with gymnasium colours, consisting of
short tunic of black basement cloth, a cord girdle of College colours, black boomers,
handkerchief cap of college colours (STC Handbook, 1924, p.56). By the 1920s
students also sat for physical culture examinations and this included questions like,
“In giving commands for exercise what details should be noted?” (STC Handbook,
1926, p.63). A reading of the undergraduate students magazines Kookaburra and
Drylight gives a student perspective of the subject and in a few editions it is referred
to as “physical torture” as apposed to “physical training.” The lecturers were much
admired by students because they engaged in the social activities of the College, and
for example Eve Redfern coached the hockey side, while Cooke-Russell coached a
number of men’s sporting teams.
I recall that, as a pupil at the Model Public School at Fort Street, I was
taught physical drill. The whole school had drill each recess; the subject was
taught on the asphalt surface of a tennis court which lay between the school
and present roadway. Drill followed a set procedure. First the students
bowed to the deputy who stood on a rostrum and, having taken a bow,
proceeded to give directions for wand, club or dumb-bell drill, depending on
the current vogue in equipment.
Elsewhere around the world prior to World War II, there had been substantial gains in
educational theory and pedagogy, especially with the impact of Dewey (1900, 1902)
and others, but physical education stagnated in an outdated model which had not
changed since its implementation in the 1870s. Dewey (1900) was clearly against the
prevailing theory of formal discipline and was critical of teaching which gave little
opportunity for self-expression. Many of his educational examples were frequently
taken from the playground. Apart from Eve Redfern, who graduated from the
Teachers College in 1916, the other staff had no formal degrees or diplomas, and
missed out on all these exciting developments in education. The rest of the Sydney
Teachers College staff all had undergraduate degrees and diplomas, most from
abroad; a few even Masters. The academic organ of the Teachers College was the
Forum of Education and from its establishment in 1906 until World War II, there
were no academic articles from the physical education staff or for that matter any
articles dealing with physical education.
Skills
With the onset of World War II and the following decades, physical education in
Australian schools changed. The pre-war physical culture based military instruction
and military orientated command response was replaced with physical education with
a central core of activities and the teaching of functional skills. This change all began
in 1937 when the first meeting of the Physical Education Advisory Committee was
held and the committee recommended that a Canadian Gordon Young be appointed
director of physical education. With the onset of World War II the Board of Studies in
Physical Education was constituted in 1939 by the University of Sydney under a
Commonwealth Grant for the purpose of conducting a course in physical education at
the University. However, as there were no suitable facilities at the University it was
decided to conduct a course at Sydney Teacher’s College.
What is interesting to note here is that many of the University of Sydney academics
were against physical education course because they felt it would diminish the status
of the University. However, the physical education cause had a great ally in Professor
Harvey Sutton from the Faculty of Medicine who was a great advocate of physical
education. In 1937 in the undergraduate student magazine The Union Recorder in an
article titled Modern Physical Education he urged the University authorities to adopt a
Department of Physical Education (4 November 1937, pp.1-2).
This was certainly not the case for American universities or most continental
European universities, where physical education had an elevated standing. Australia
though adopted the British model of university (Turney, Bygott & Chippendale,
1991). The subject had been allocated to Colleges in Britain and there seemed to be
no good reason why it should be different in Australia. Academics were concerned
that the subject matter essential for teaching, the professional training and the
practical work involved did not constitute a rigorous course of study suitable to a
University. It was understandable that many British trained academics questioned the
right of physical education to University status. There was no previous tradition of
physical education teaching in Australia and with few qualified teachers there was
little to convince them otherwise.
In 1939 a two-year certificate course was inaugurated at the Sydney Teachers College
which became the first physical education course offered at an Australian teachers
college. From 1942 to 1945, the graduates from the Teachers College swelled the
ranks of secondary school physical education teachers, and from 1946 onwards
graduates holding the Diploma in Physical Education were appointed fully qualified
specialist teachers (Moutray, 1973). These graduates were educated in games training,
dancing, track and field, swimming and other recreational sports; although this type of
physical education was based on the teaching of functional skills. This period
emphasised the acquisition of skill and technique which dominated physical education
pedagogy at the Teachers College. The three principal lecturers employed were Hal
Le Maistre, Margaret Swain and Robyn Gray. Skill based technique was over-
emphasised within school and university physical education. This is evident from the
textbooks of the time and the various publications of staff members (Swain &
LeMaistre, 1964).
Skills were taught in isolation, without requiring the players to think and apply the
techniques to the situations required in the game. That is, the students, who had never
played the particular sport or for that matter did not come across the sport, did not
understand what they were doing and why. There are a few examples that can be cited
here. Australia by its very nature is a nation made up of many different ethnic groups
and there have been waves of immigration. At first from Great Britain and after post-
World War II from southern and eastern Europe to the 1970s and 1980s where there
were waves from Asia and the Middle East. The youth of these immigrants would
therefore would be taught skill based physical education in sports such as cricket,
Australian Rules Football and Rugby League and it is little wonder that they did not
enjoy physical education classes. They had not been exposed to these sports and in
their traditions there was none of these types of games and sports.
The University was pre-occupied with physical education undergraduates being able
“to perform the skills” as apposed being able to teach. This is perhaps best typified by
the philosophy of allowing gifted and talented athletes in the programs. In the 1950s
and 1960s entry requirement to the diploma were in many ways dictated by the ability
of students and many elite athletes would gain entry into the program by virtue of
their physical ability. The developments in physical education stagnated and it gained
the reputation of being the Cinderalla subject in the school curriculum. Therefore
throughout its existence it attracted a number of well-known athletes, too numerous to
mention in this article. The point being that a great athlete does not translate into
being a great physical educator. During this period the focus was on content with little
or no attention paid to pedagogy.
Unit of study outlines from this period clearly illustrate this emphasis on skill
development. Students would be tested on the various skills in most courses and the
various units of study were broken up into various skills. For example, if they studied
cricket, they would say spend week 1 on bowling, week 2 on batting etc etc. The
physical education diploma at Sydney Teachers College was also influenced heavily
by the study of science subjects; such as physiology of exercise, anatomy and
physiology, test and measurement and kinesiology. There was an emphasis on
decontextualised skills, which was a contrast with situated learning, based upon socio-
cultural learning theory perspectives.
Game Sense
As readers of this publication are likely to be familiar with Game Sense I will offer
only a brief description of it here. It is an approach that uses the game as the focus of
the physical education lesson. It uses modified games to locate learning in authentic
contexts with a focus on learning to play the game instead of learning discrete and de-
contextualised skills or techniques. By focusing on the game, players are encouraged
to: firstly become more tactically aware and able to make better decisions during the
games; secondly start thinking strategically about the game; thirdly develop skills
within a realistic and enjoyable context, rather than practicing in isolation and finally
develop a greater understanding of the game being played.
Bunker and Thorpe’s work in developing Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU)
was first published in 1982 but had its roots in some of the work being done by
coaches in the UK from the 1960s such as that of Alan Wade. Grehaigne, Wallian &
Godbout (2005) suggest that the ideas manifested in TGfU can be traced back to the
ideas of scholars and researchers in France and Germany. The ideas embedded in the
pedagogy of TGfU and the general philosophy of teaching and learning underpinning
it can be found in the work of Piaget on psychological constructivism and the work of
American educational philosopher, John Dewey with his emphasis on experience.
That is to say that much of what Bunker and Thorpe developed in TGfU is not
necessarily new but that it has a complex genealogy – it has a history.
During the mid 1990s Rod Thorpe worked with coaches and the Australian Sports
Commission to develop a variation of TGfU that was more focused on coaching and
less structured than TGfU (Light, 2004). This work was first published in 1997 by the
ASC as resources for coaches and is still being produced and sold. It does not use the
model proposed by Bunker and Thorpe and is really a loose reference to coaching that
employs modified games for training and which uses coach questioning instead of
direct instruction (Light, 2004). Game Sense has made a significant impact upon
coaching across a range of levels and sports in Australia and has increasingly attracted
the attention of teachers and teacher educators. Paul Webb from the University of
Wollongong was involved in the initial development of Game Sense and, as a teacher
educator, has been prominent in encouraging its uptake through practical workshops
with his colleagues.
Australian researchers in the physical education field have also helped with its uptake
by teachers and teacher education programs. Before he moved to the UK in 1998
David Kirk wrote on Game Sense and TGfU with Ross Brooker and Richard Light in
particular prominent in research on TGfU and Game Sense in Australia and
internationally. Both were involved in the 2003 international conference at the
University of Melbourne that had a very significant impact in Australia and New
Zealand. Light’s work in particular has emphasized the pedagogy of Game Sense in
physical education teaching and coaching and has helped in its development within
schools in Victoria and New South Wales in particular. On the other side of the
Tasman Lynn Kidman has been prominent in publishing on and promoting a Game
Sense approach to coaching and New Zealand colleagues have also begun to write on
and develop the Game Sense approach to physical education teaching (for example
see, Pope, 2005). Within less than a decade Game Sense has influenced coaching and
teaching in schools and has come to feature in PDHPE (Personal Development
Physical Education and Health) teacher education programs such as at the University
of Sydney, the University of Wollongong and the University of Newcastle in NSW.
At the University of Sydney Game Sense was being taught from 2000 but it was not
until the arrival of Richard Light from the University of Melbourne in 2004 that it
became the dominant physical education and sport pedagogy adopted in the Human
Movement and Health Education program. Game Sense has since become a central
part of the program. A Game Sense like approach was being taught at around the time
of the Sydney Olympics in 2000 but the first unit of study actually titled Game Sense
was taught in 2003.
Conclusion
Within the scope of the periods covered by this paper the development and impact of
Game Sense is very recent. It does, however, represent a very significant change in
approaches to physical education teaching and in the practice and role of physical
education teacher education programs in NSW universities that can be seen as part of
historical development. It was not until the development of research in Game Sense
and other similar approaches such as TGfU and Play Practice (Launder, 2001) that
issue of pedagogy became prominent in physical education discourse in Australia.
The consequent uptake of these approaches in teacher education programs has made
the issue of how to teach as important, if not more important, than what to teach. This
development has, in turn, seen physical education teacher education programs in
universities take a lead in the development of new and better ways to teach in schools.
While physical education has long lagged behind other subject areas in the
development of practice informed by learning theory it now has the opportunity to
lead the way in showing how comprehensive learning can be achieved through the
engagement of the body and its movements in learning (Light, 2002b; Light & Fawns,
2003).
References
Lynn Kidman
Sport and Recreation New Zealand
One of the major reasons we participate in sport is for the human movement
experience and the excitement and indescribable feeling that comes with it. Human
movement is never static or robotic, but is expressive, creative, adaptable and
versatile and the best athletes are those who can respond to others’ movements in a
novel situation. Human movement is dynamic action always changing and modifying
and the thrill of a great move can not be underestimated. Much of this paper will
espouse the work of a humble, authentic man, Ben Lombardo, who in 1987 wrote a
book entitled “The Humanistic Coach”. Ben’s work has been the basis to my thinking
about coach development in the last dozen years or so. My interest in Teaching
Games for Understanding (TGfU), or Game Sense as known to some, is based on how
the model emphasises this human experience in sport. Thorpe and Bunker (1989)
developed TGfU as a means to enable students to learn in a more motivating
environment than was occurring in Physical Education. I will focus within the
contextual realms of sport and coaching specifically, to highlight how TGfU has
enabled athletes to revert back to ‘playing’ (the most humanistic form of movement)
and how it meets holistic needs of an individual (humanism).
Athlete-centred and humanistic coaching are terms that will be used interchangeably.
They both refer to the total development of the individual (Lombardo, 2001). They
focus on enhancing athlete self-awareness, and holistic growth and development.
Humanism, based on Maslow’s (1962) self actualisation theory and Rogers’ (1969)
work, focuses on the whole person (the athletes) and encourages athletes to reflect on
the subjective, thrilling experience of sport (Lombardo, 2001). Sport is a vehicle to
enhance personal development and self-understanding. It is an authentic experience
that develops human character that so many adults stress, but not many practise in the
sporting context.
Being authentic is the current topical term used to define real human practices and fits
in well with the idea of TGfU (which is authentic practice of sport). Ben Lombardo
(2001) espouses humanistic coaching as a tool to create within the athletes the
motivation to learn and achieve. Traditional models of coaching cater to the
socialising agencies of young people forty years ago. Today, coaching approaches
need to be modified to suit the socialisation trends of the 21st century. TGfU caters to
these trends by enabling athlete autonomy and freedom. This autonomy and freedom
come through athlete ownership, awareness and responsibility for his/her
performance. The movement experiences arising from the application of TGfU are
humanizing in that they positively influence self-esteem, self-direction, independence
and opportunities that can “express intense moments of joy and supreme well-being”
(Workman, 2001).
Ben Lombardo (2001) indicates his beliefs of the problematic nature of adult
structured sports in coaching humanistically:
• Sport has a Voluntary Nature – children take it up because they want to, they
also quit because they want to. Adult structured sport perpetuates the attrition
factor in children’s sports (Wiggins, 2002).
• The particular sport has a strong intrinsic appeal for the participant: initially,
enjoyment is the primary motivation and the sport must maximize this
enjoyment. Adult structured sports can minimise enjoyment when a ‘winning
at all costs’ is the focus.
• All participants develop in many ways and at many levels as a result of the
sport experience, regardless of the specific manner in which the programme is
administered – they learn about themselves as a result of the experience, but
they don’t all learn the same thing. Learning is unique to the individual. Often
we see sporting environments where athletes are taught to perform “my way
or the highway” or taught tasks all in the same way.
• Sport has an educational intent – Often this is spelled out in the strategic plans
of sport organisations, whether it is physical, social psychological or a
combination of all. However, transferring policy to practice in adult-structured
sport often does not occur (Penney, 2006).
• Children possess a great variety of reasons for entering the sport experience,
all of which are meaningful and relevant to them and include, but are not
limited to, increased motor proficiency and winning – mostly, the reasons are
not congruent with the adult leader. Research suggests that children’s main
reasons for participating in sport are to have fun, be with friends and
experience its thrills and excitement (Roberts, Treasure and Hall, 1994).
To enable these athletes to participate for their reasons the role of the coach becomes
one of ‘releasing, facilitating and assisting, not one of manipulating and coercing’
(Lombardo, p. 86)
• Youngsters put some coats down to make soccer goals for a game.
There are seven of them but they decide to play three, including the
oldest player, against four, including the two youngest.
• At the start of a basketball lesson, the coach has not arrived. The
youngsters are playing two-v-two and using disguise, reverse dunks
(or nearly). The coach walks [in] and coaches ‘fundamentals’,
divorced from any game or individual need. The kids were
challenging themselves and each other; the coach failed to do so.
The common factor in our observations was that when children were
getting on with it, uncluttered by teachers and coaches, they were often
more productive in terms of learning in context, enhancing motivation
through challenges, social interactions, etc. They were empowered by
circumstance. … we noticed that kids left alone often had it and were the
better for it. If we accept that well-intentioned coaching is not always
better than no coaching, we might examine our practice more carefully”
(p. 23).
The purpose of coaching is to enable athletes to learn in a way that works best for
them (Kidman, 2005). First, this is about their individual physical and mental
makeup, and where they are with technical and tactical development. Second, it is
about being able to perform to their best when in competition or when challenged
(SPARC, 2006).
In a competitive situation the athlete will preferably just compete, be ‘in the moment’
and react based on his/her self-awareness of the situation or movement. Part of the
self-belief will be that he/she has an appropriate goal and knows that he/she can get
back on track when something goes astray. The learning that happens at training
should be about developing that skill – the skill of self correcting or self coaching and
being the best that you can be on that day (SPARC, 2006). TGfU caters to this well,
provides competition and authentic situational opportunities for athletes to experience
and learn.
In his book Ben Lombardo (2001) highlights our oversight (often unintentional) in
ensuring that, as coaches, our mission is to create better human beings. He suggests
that the experience in sport should be about being authentic, true to oneself, human in
every way. TGfU is a model that enables humanistic experiences to happen. Play is
one of these intrinsic experiences, as it is spontaneous and expresses uniqueness.
Current sport programmes can suppress this human need of play and spontaneity. The
environments that demand conformity don’t promote the ‘play’ within sport.
However, TGfU promotes play, perpetuates spontaneity, creativity and innovation
and enables athletes to learn from constructing experiences.
TGfU is humanistic because it enhances athletes’ motivation and thus their intensity
of performance through their own problem solving. Athletes increase their effort
because of the meaningful challenges offered. These challenges also create
opportunities for athletes to respond to pressure inherent in sport competitions.
Achievement is also enhanced as TGfU enables athletes to do something well, to
problem solve, and to take ownership for their own learning. Of course, enjoyment is
also enhanced because games are fun. Through games, athletes share success and
failure; they learn how to trust each other and to about each other’s ways of
competing and making decisions, which enhances team culture.
At the 2003 biennial TGfU conference in Melbourne, Rod Thorpe expressed his
concern about coaches actually practising athlete-centred learning:
The real concern for me was that sometimes in a search for a more ‘structured
lesson’ or ‘physical education programme’, many of the adaptations were at
the expense of the individual and certainly at the expense of individual
empowerment.
Teaching Games for Understanding/Game Sense is being embraced,
adapted and developed. This is heartening to me and the many other
people who contributed to the early models. But if the developments do
not retain those elements that surround the concept of empowering the
individual athlete, they miss the point (Kidman, 2005, p. 243)
With TGfU, athletes can learn about the game and practise skills and techniques
within the context of a game rather than separate from it. Learning in context provides
a sound understanding of the game and opportunities to apply skill and technique
under pressure. When athletes are allowed to play or practice, in a situation
uncluttered by coaches telling them what to do and where to go, they are more
productive in terms of learning in context, enhancing motivation through challenges,
social interactions and decision making (Kidman & Hanrahan, 2004) and working
under pressure. The key here is that the coaches don’t tell them what to do, the
athletes work it out for themselves.
Creating Independent Athletes
A key to coaching is the ability to read the situation and decide when to stand back
and let athletes play and when to jump in and try and give them some thinking
opportunities. Often, we as coaches lose sight as to where the athletes want to head.
Athletes have a need to be understood, not evaluated or judged. They need to be
simply understood from their point of view; that is empathy. One of the major tools
for athletes to learn is to become self-aware. To become self-aware, there is an
element of self-evaluation that must occur. It is not an easy process and coaches must
nurture and encourage athletes to gain this self-awareness by allowing them to make
mistakes and enable independence and confidence. If athletes are dependent on the
coach for total instruction, there can be an increase in stress to do exactly what is
asked. If they are dependent on the coach, they won’t easily be able to make decisions
on the field or pitch. If coaches can increase awareness, thought processes become the
athletes rather than robotically copying what the coach says.
Contemporary social and cultural life demonstrate socializing agents (e.g. two parents
working, lots of computer games, developing dependent people) that influence
athletes of today. Unfortunately, in many instances, coach systems, as Ben Lombardo
points out, have failed to recognise and adjust to these changes, continuing to coach
children the way we were coached 40 years ago (which was appropriate for the
culture of that time). It is not appropriate to have children who spend all day making
their own decisions arrive at the pitch or sport environment to have all the meaningful
decision making is taken away from them and made by adult leaders.
It is important to review the benefits and determine why each athlete participates or
competes. Unfortunately, what happens in sport is that the adults decide the direction
and the sport environment becomes the place for adults to express their power and
intentions of what sport is to them making athletes dependent on them. The overriding
goals of coaches tend to be motor efficiency and winning (Lombardo, 1987) even
though research shows that the main reason for sport participation is socialization, fun
and the pursuit (and I stress the word pursuit as a process not an outcome) of
excellence.
New Zealand coach development refelects recognition of the need for coaches to
develop an athlete-centred coaching philosophy (humanistic) through practice. As
part of that development, Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC) talked to
coaches around New Zealand on how to develop quality coaches. These coaches first
said that coach development should be community based. These communities (from
Middle Childhood to High Performance athletes) determine what sort of learning
needs to occur to develop quality coaches who are ‘world-class’ within their own
coaching communities.
Mary O’Sullivan at the ICHPER Conference in New Zealand (2006) suggested that
for physical education teacher education, we need to design curriculum to match the
needs of student-centred learning. Students (and for this paper, athletes) need to
learn through experience and have opportunities to solve problems and take
responsibility for their learning. She suggested that we need to have learning
communities, where commonalties and purposes of learning are mutual. Many
policies overtly support the direction that New Zealand coach development has taken,
but the implementation of these policies seldom thrives, as such a task is glossed over
and put into the ‘too hard’ basket. New Zealand Coach Development has taken on the
challenge by attempting to enable coaches to have opportunities to learn ‘on the job’,
focus on athlete-centred coaching and learn within likeminded coaching communities.
TGfU has been included in every community as an important model to enable the
holistic development of athletes. In her research Catherine Ennis at the AIESEP
conference in Finland (2006) also reinforced TGfU as a best practice model which
meets the needs of student-centred learning through affective and cognitive learning.
Summary
So, where is this humanistic coaching? I know there are great examples of best
practice in the sporting context based on humanism as I personally have seen its
practices, but many of the practices still occur in the traditional, prescriptive way.
Humanistic coaching is still dismissed as the “fluffy, tree hugging, dolphin stroking”
way and as a coaching fraternity, we don’t encourage athlete awareness, ownership
and responsibility. Many sports and coaching organisations believe and state in their
strategic plans that athlete centred learning should be used to develop individuals, but
often the nature of policy creation does not always lead to quality implementation.
The organisational leaders seldom actually practise what they preach in these
documents, and rather display behaviours of conformity (Lombardo, 1987). Sport and
coaching organisations claim difficulty due to the commercialisation trend which
seems to have interrupted the need to focus on human learning and still retain the
bottom line, money based on results. Interestingly, the research now is saying that an
athlete centred approach actually will enable better performance and enhance winning
(Kidman, 2005), where athletes are encouraged to become self-aware and take
ownership and responsibility for their learning needed to perform well.
TFfU is a great model to cater for the humanistic needs of athletes. It has the benefit
of providing physical learning opportunities, embedded in cognitive learning
outcomes and decision making. TGfU also focuses on affective development whereby
social and emotional needs are learned. Teaching Games for Understanding promotes
the humanistic side of individuals whereby each person’s experience is unique and
can be designed around the desires and thrills of the individual. In essence, Ben
Lombardo was forward thinking in his book to try to get sport back to its original
intention. It is time to use sport as a tool to focus on human qualities. As Ben
Lombardo (1987) rightly suggested, “Sport has the potential to truly liberate the
essence of being fully human” (p. 85)
References
Bigelow, B., Moroney, T. & Hall, L. (2001). Just let the kids play: How to stop
other adults from ruining your child’s fun and success in youth sports,
Darfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Griffin, L.L. & Butler, J.I. (2005). Teaching games for understanding: Theory,
research and practice, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jones, R. J. (Ed.). Sports Coach as Educator: Reconceptualising sports coaching,
London, Routledge.
Kidman, L. (2005). Athlete-centred coaching: Developing inspired and inspiring
people, Christchurch, NZ: Innovative Print Communications.
Kidman, L. (2001). Developing decision makers: An empowerment approach to
coaching, Christchurch, NZ: Innovative Print Communications.
Kidman, L. & Hanrahan, S. J. (2004). The coaching process: A practical guide to
improve your effectiveness, Sydney, AU: Thomson Learning.
Kidman, L., McKenzie, A., & McKenzie, B. (1999). The nature and target of
parents’ comments during youth sport competitions. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 22(1), 54–68.
Kretchmar, R.S. (2005). Teaching games for understanding and the delights of
human activity, In L.L. Griffin and J.I.Butler (Eds), Teaching Games for
Understanding: Theory, research and practice (pp. 199-212), Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Lombardo, B.J. (2001). Coaching in the 21st century: The educational models. In
B.J. Lombardo, T.J. Carvella-Nadeau, K.S. Castagno, & V.H. Mancini (Eds.),
Sport in the Twenty-first Century: Alternatives for the new millennium (pp. 3-
10). Boston, MA: Pearson CustomLombardo, B.J. (1987), The humanistic
coach, Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Maslow, A. (1962). Towards a Psychology of being, Princeton, NJ: D. van
Nostrand.
O’Sullivan, M. (2006). Creating and sustaining professional learning communities
among Physical Education, sport and recreation professionals, ICHPER
Fusion and Movement Conference, October, 2006, Wellington, NZ.
Penney, D. (2006). Coaching as teaching: New acknowledgements in practice, In R.
L. Jones (Ed.), Sports Coach as Educator: Reconceptualising sports coaching
(pp. 25-36), London, Routledge.
Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become,
Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill.
Roberts, G.C., Treasure, D.C., & Hall, H.K. (1994). Parental goal orientations and
beliefs about the competitive-sport experience of their child. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24, 631–645.
SPARC (2006). Athlete-centred coaching philosophy effective coaching resource,
(www.sparc.org.nz)
Thorpe, R.D. & Bunker, D. (1989). A changing focus in games teaching. In L.
Almond (Ed.) The Place of Physical Education in Schools (pp. 42-71).
London: Kogan Page.
Turner, A.P. (2005). Teaching and learning games at the secondary level, In L. L.
Griffin & J. I. Butler (Eds.) Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory,
research and practice, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Whitmore, J. (2002). Coaching for performance: growing people, performance and
purpose (3rd Ed), London: Nicolas Brealey.
Wiggins, D.K. (2002). A history of highly competitive sport for American children,
In F. L. Smoll and R.E. Smith (Eds.), Children and Youth in Sport: A
biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 19-38). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Workman, G. J. (2001). Humanistic ideology in sport: Time for a change, In B.J.
Lombardo, T.J. Carvella-Nadeau, K.S. Castagno, & V.H. Mancini (Eds.),
Sport in the Twenty-first Century: Alternatives for the new millennium (pp. 84-
87). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom.
Accessing the Inner World of Children: The Use of Student
Drawings in Research on Children’s Experiences of Game
Sense
Richard Light
The University of Sydney, Australia
Introduction
There has been a marked growth in the literature on Teaching Games for Understanding
(TGfU) and its variations such as Game Sense over the past decade that has been
accompanied by an increasing growth in both areas of inquiry and the methods used.
From a narrow focus on experimental research that sought to compare and contrast
technical and tactical approaches in the early 1990s the range of foci and the methods
used have grown significantly. Within the growth in qualitative studies in this area there
has been increasing interest in the affective dimensions of TGfU (for example see, Holt,
Strean & Begoechea, 2002; Light, 2003; Pope, 2005). This has yet, however, to translate
into significant growth in empirical studies. Some studies have sought to gain
understanding of the affective dimensions of Teacher development in TGfU across a
wide range of cultural settings (Light & Butler, 2005; Light & Tan, 2004) but there has
been a surprising dearth of studies on the affective dimensions of children’s and young
people’s experiences of TGfU /Game Sense. At the same time there has been very little
specific attention paid to research methodology in the TGfU literature. In setting out to
redress these oversights this paper reports on a study on the affective dimensions of
children’ first experiences of Game Sense focusing on the use of student drawings as a
primary data generation method.
Conducted in a year six class in a Sydney primary school the study sought to answer the
question: ‘Can the Game Sense approach to teaching games have a positive impact upon
the inclinations of low skilled, less motivated primary school students toward sport?
Adopting an interpretive and humanistic approach it sought to gain insight into human
experience and make sense of the impact that Game Sense pedagogy had on a group of
year 6 children. It employed the use of student drawings to gain insight into the inner
world of students and the meaning that they make of sport when taught using a Game
Sense approach.
Game Sense is a variation of Bunker and Thorpe’s (1982) Teaching Games for
Understanding (TGfU) model for games teaching developed in Australia through
collaboration between the Australian Sports Commission, Rod Thorpe and local coaches
(Light, 2004). It places all learning within modified games to emphasise understanding,
tactical awareness, decision-making and the development of flexible, contextualised
skill. As Light and Fawns (2003) suggest, this promotes social interaction from which
interpersonal relationships and social learning develop. Within this context the affective
dimensions of participation and experience emerge as an important consideration.
Game Sense usually involves beginning with simple games and building up complexity
as understanding and skill develops. For example, a teacher/coach working on passing
and receiving in basketball may begin with a simple game of 6 V 6 played in a half court
in which there is no dribbling with the aim being to make 6 successive passes to score a
point. In this activity players off the ball move to find space and free themselves of the
defence while the ball carrier has to decide to whom he/she should pass and then where
to move to. The understanding and skill developed in this game could be further
developed in a more complex game such as ‘key ball’. In this game players attack in one
direction and aim to make a minimum number of passes (say, four) before passing to a
player in the key who gets a free shot at the basket. The most important part of the
teacher’s work in Game Sense is the design of appropriate learning environments in
which games are presented as problems to be solved with teacher questioning guiding
learning and students encouraged to work collaboratively (Howarth, 2005).
Game Sense provides an inclusive approach that can engage all learners regardless of
ability and experience. Games are modified to reduce the demands on skill and technique
and to prevent the stronger and more capable from dominating while extending their
tactical engagement in the games. For example, if the teacher limits dribbling in
basketball to three bounces the skilled player must think about passing to other players
and repositioning him/herself to be available for a reception. This challenges the better
player and helps engage the other players in the game. By learning in games
players/students are less visible than they would be under the scrutiny of the teacher and
their peers when asked to perform technique to a satisfactory level. The emphasis on
collaborative problem solving also encourages learner involvement and meaningful
membership in the team. Research on pre-service primary school teachers’ responses to
Game Sense/TGfU suggests that it is inclusive, provides a supportive social environment
and is appealing to young people who have been previously disliked sport due to the
ways in which traditional approaches marginalised them (Light, 2002; Light &
Georgakis, 2005).
With the focus on the affective dimensions of games this study required data generation
methods that could provide deep insight into children’s complex, whole-person
experiences of games taught using a Game Sense approach. Interviews, even those that
are semi structured or conversational in nature, tend to structure responses through the
questions that are asked. As Brooker and Macdonald (1999) suggest, the use of visual
data and visual modes of analysis offers a means through which researchers can address
concern with the lack of student voice in research on physical education. It also offers a
means through which researchers can attempt to enter the ‘realm of meaning’ (Geertz,
1973) of children’s worlds.
The use of visual data generation includes the use of photography (photo elicitation and
auto photography) and drawings. Photo elicitation involves the use of photographs to
stimulate responses that, in turn, can generate dialogue between researcher and
participant. Ziller (1990) used a method he describes as auto photography in which the
participant takes photographs that are used in interviews. In their study on the meaning
of soccer in the lives of young men in a Melbourne high school, Light and Quay (2004)
adopted this auto-photography method. They asked a small number of key informants in
their study to photograph anything that could tell the researchers something about soccer
in their lives. When the photographs were developed the participants were asked to
explain them in terms of why they took them and what they meant. In this research the
data were generated through dialogue and not through any researcher interpretation of
the photographs. Light and Quay suggest that this method allowed the participants to
lead the researchers into their world.
Student drawings have been widely used in research on children’s understandings of the
classroom environment (McPhail & Kinchin, 2004) and offer another data generation
method that can generate deep understanding experience. Recently MacPhail and
Kinchin used student drawings in an examination of year five (primary school) students’
experiences of Sport Education. They used group interviews in which the students
discussed and explained their drawings three months after the drawings were completed.
However, the primary use of drawings in their study to generate data was in rating the
drawings according to particular themes, As some of the literature suggests, the
interpretation of student drawings can be problematic due to the researcher’s inability to
adequately capture the complexity and meaning of children’s representations of
experience. (Gramradt & Staples, 1994; Wales, 1990). Wales suggests that interpretation
of student drawings is shaped by the researchers own experiences and ‘prejudices’ and
advises caution in generating data through interpretation. With this in mind we made no
attempt to interpret the participants’ drawings. Instead, we used children’s drawings to
generate data through the use of drawings to stimulate meaningful dialogue between the
researcher and the participant.
Research Method
This section discusses the ways in which the use of student drawings contributed
toward the research results and is structured around the three themes that emerged
from the study. These themes are: the changes in social interaction and relationships,
student perceptions of learning and the improvements in student attitude toward
cricket and softball.
All participants enjoyed playing in teams and the emphasis that Game Sense placed
on working as a team: “I like having like teamwork, how they work together and
cooperating” (Mark, interview, September 16, 2005). One of the girls, Katherine,
said: “I think it gives you more cooperation skills and it teaches you to like, it teaches
you to not be selfish when you are playing with groups and things” (Interview,
September 2, 2005).
Over the term the students became more open to having discussions and
conversations about their games and valued the learning that arose from interaction as
Emma suggested when discussing her representation of interaction in a game:
You learn a lot from everyone. It’s good to listen to everybody actually,
it’s not fair to cut them out, it’s good to take something from everybody,
cos even the people that are not really good at sports still learn strategies
(Emma, interview, September 2, 2005).
In explaining one of her drawing showing boys and girls and reflecting upon the
pervious cricket lesson Emily thought that the cricket lesson were having a positive
impact upon the relationships between girls and boys:
It's a big effect. Because, like, with the kanga cricket, we had to be boy
girl partners which was really good, because we could interact with
boys, usually the boys wouldn’t talk to us and we won’t talk to them”
(Interview, September 16, 2005).
The unit was designed for learning to develop gradually as the complexity of games
progressed. The aim of the study was not to measure improvement in game
performance so we did not use any formal assessment instrument but we did take note
of improvement in game play. Learning occurred within games and was, therefore,
less explicit than learning using a technical approach. Consequently the participants
did not see learning as being something separate from the games. Dialogue that
emerged from discussion of student drawings allowed us to identify the ways in
which they did not see learning as a struggle or a task but more as part of enjoying the
experience. In their words they were just having fun in the game and saw the Game
Sense approach as a ‘natural’ way of learning as William indicates:
The dialogue arising from discussion of drawings also highlighted growing student
understanding of the intellectual aspects of game play as is evident in this quote from
one of the girls, Rachael:
[Thinking in sport is] very important, if you want to win the game, just
having fun, doing your best and thinking a lot. I think sports are just like
as good as maths or something, because using your brain just as in sports
is just the same as maths or everything (Interview, September 16, 2005).
In discussing his drawing of a cricket activity William highlighted the extent to which
he had become aware of the intellectual aspects of cricket:
Like, normally we play sports that include not much thinking, but these
few weeks, we’ve been playing sports that include us to think where to
hit the ball, not directly up to the person” (September 16, 2005).
Katherine’s reflection upon the term captures the extent to which the Game Sense
approach had addressed the key informants’ reservations about sport, the depth of
their emotional responses and the impact it had their self-esteem:
Conclusion
Emotions, feelings and other aspects of affect are, as Hanin (cited Pope, 2005)
suggests, vital aspects of sport participation. They are, “what sport is all about” (Pope,
2005, 273) yet the affective dimensions of TGfU (and by implication similar
variations such as Game Sense) have been largely overlooked and require far more
research attention than they have received to date. Despite recent calls for attention to
the affective dimensions of TGfU (Chen & Light, 2006; Holt et al, 2002; Pope, 2005)
little empirical research has been conducted in this area. Some research on teacher
development has paid attention to affect (Light, 2002; Light & Butler, 2005; Light &
Georgarkis, 2005) but, with some exceptions (see for example, Light, 2003; Chen &
Light, 2006), this aspect of children and young people’s engagement in games taught
using understanding approaches remains largely unexplored. Pope suggests that
among the reasons why such little research has been conducted on affect is the
difficulty in not only measuring or quantifying it but also in identifying what it
actually is. As he suggests, affect is typically seen as an ambiguous and vague
concept. The physical education field still labours under the influence of positivist
traditions in research and its dominance in the sports sciences with its emphasis on
quantifying and measuring. While some aspects of TGfU, Game Sense and other
similar approaches lend themselves to positivist, experimental approaches other
aspects do not. Inquiry into human experience that sets out to interpret and understand
the affective dimensions of participation in games taught using Game Sense assumes
different epistemology and requires different methods of generating data. In this study
the use of student drawings provided a valuable means of seeing some of the aspects
of the participants’ experiences of the cricket unit from their perspectives. It provided
us with understanding of the complex human experience involved in playing and
learning games.
The insight into the meanings that children make of sport the study reported on in this
paper has implications for more general research on sport and physical education and
for the development of sport, physical education and recreational activities for
children. Given that, in Australia (and elsewhere), developing life long physically
active life styles forms the prime justification for physical education, there is a need to
understand the affective dimensions of children’s participation in sport and other
physical activities. This necessarily requires methods of inquiry that can provide
understanding of meaning and a means of hearing children’s voices. As Brooker and
Macdonald (1999) argue, there is a need for more student voice in research on
physical education and sport to provide deep understanding of children’s worlds and
interpretations of experience. If we are to develop meaningful and relevant learning
experiences for children in physical education and sport that encourage positive
attitudes toward sport and other physical activity we suggest that this is an area in
need of further inquiry.
References
Bunker, D. and Thorpe, R. (1982) ‘A Model for the Teaching of Games in Secondary
Schools’, Bulletin of Physical Education18 (1), 5–8.
Brooker, R. & Macdonald, D. (1999). Did we Hear You? Issues of Student Voice in a
Curriculum Innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(4), 597-608.
Butler, J. (2005). TGfU pedagogy: Old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3).
Chen, Q. & Light, R. (2006). I thought I’d hate cricket but I love it!’: Year six
students’ responses to Game Sense pedagogy. Special issue, Youth Sport in
Australia and New Zealand, Change: Transformations in Education, 9(1).
Gamradt, J. & Staples, C. (1994). My School and Me: Children’s Drawings in Post-
modern Educational Research and Evaluation. Visual Arts Research 20, 36-49.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretations of Cultures. London: Hutchinson.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine
Holt, N., Strean, W, Begoechea, E.G., (2002). Expanding the Teaching Games for
Understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice, Journal of
Teaching Physical Education, 21(2), 162-177.
Howarth, C. (2005). Introducing the Teaching Games for Understanding model in
teacher education programs. In L. Griffin & J. Butler (Eds) Teaching Games for
Understanding: Theory, Research and Practice, Champaign IL: Human Kinetics,
pp. 91-106.
Light, R. (2002). The Social Nature of Games: Pre-service Primary Teachers’ First
Experiences of TGfU, European Physical Education Review. 8(3), 291-310.
Light, R. (2003). The Joy of Learning: Emotion, Cognition and Learning in Games
through TGfU, New Zealand Journal of Physical Education, 36(1), 94-108.
Light, R. & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the Game: Integrating Speech and Action in
Games Teaching through TGfU. Quest, 55(2), 161-176.
Light, R. & Georgakis, S. (2005). A question of pedagogy? Female pre-service
teachers’ responses to a Game Sense unit in an Australian university. Journal of
Physical Education New Zealand, 38(2).
Light, R. & Quay, J. (2003). Identity, Physical Capital and the Disjunction between
Young Men’s Experiences of Soccer in School and Community-based Clubs,
Melbourne Studies in Education, 44(2), 89-106.
Light, R. & Tan, S. (2006). Culture, embodied understandings and primary school
teachers’ development of TGfU in Singapore and Australia.
European Physical Education Review, 12(1)
MacPhail, A. & Kinchin, G. (2004). The Use of Drawings as an Evaluative Tool:
Students’ Experiences of Sport Education. Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy 9(1), 87-108.
Pope, C. (2005). Once More with Feeling: Affect and Playing with the TGfU Model.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(3), 271-286.
Wales, R. (1990). Children’s Pictures. In R. Grieve & M. Hughes (Eds.)
Understanding children: Essays in Honour of Margaret Donaldson, Oxford:
Blackwell, 140-155.
Ziller, R. (1990). Photographing the self: methods for observing personal
orientations. Newbury Park, USA: Sage.
Teaching Lacrosse Using Games Based Play Practice
Principles
Wendy Piltz
University of South Australia
Introduction
Recent trends in contemporary sport pedagogy indicate that pertinent games based
environments that contextualise learning provide the foundation for developing the
capabilities needed to participate effectively and enjoyably in games and sport
(Charlesworth, 1994; Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997; Grehaigne, Godbout &
Bouthier, 1999; Hubball & Butler, 2006; Launder, 2001; Light, 2005; Slade, 2005).
In addition, frameworks that are student and learning centred have the capacity to
enhance the quality of games education and to optimise the holistic development of
students in movement competence, personal confidence, cognitive and affective
domains (Butler & McCann, 2005; Light & Fawns, 2003; Holt, Strean, &
Bengoechea, 2002; Siedentop, Hastie & Mars, 2004). The evolution of contemporary
approaches & research in the field of games education including Sport Education
(Siedentop, 2002, 1994), Play Practice (Launder, 2001), Teaching Games for
Understanding (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Werner, Thorpe, & Bunker, 1996; Butler
2002; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002) & its associated developments in Game Sense (Den
Duyn, 1997; Light 2005, 2004), Tactical concepts (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin,1997;
Bell & Hopper, 2003), Games Concepts (Wright, Fry, McNeill, Tan, Tan & Schemp,
2001) and cognitive approaches (Grehaigne, Godbout & Bouthier, 2001, 1999;
Maxwell, 2006) have collectively contributed to a better understanding of the
complexities of sport pedagogy and influenced professional practice in settings
throughout the world (Kidman 2001, Light, 2006; Martens, 2004). Emerging are
common and complimentary pedagogical principles for quality practice that include
the importance of providing enjoyable, developmentally appropriate games and
challenges that maximize participation and provide fair and inclusive involvement.
Furthermore the coach or teacher is encouraged to foster positive relationships, plan
relevant games based experiences, engage the learner, use a spectrum of methods, ask
meaningful questions and provide feedback in order to develop competent, confident
game players. It must be acknowledge that teaching and coaching are highly
complex and the application of these principles into professional practice is not an
easy task.
Play Practice is a games based approach to teaching and coaching sport that provides
a complete package of usable strategies to assist sport educators at all levels to reflect
on and enhance the quality of their professional practice. The practical approach is
embedded with sound pedagogical principles and underpinned by relevant learning
theory (Piltz, 2003a). Of particular significance for sport educators is the clarification
of the elements of effective or skilful play. Launder (2001) identifies a lack of
clarification of the nature of ‘skilled performance’ in sport in particular the misuse of
the term ‘skill’ as a key reason for the perpetuation of traditional methods. Ovens &
Smith (2006) draw attention to this same issue as they attempt to clarify the
complexity of the term skill in game performance. By defining the elements of
effective/ skilful play a model for analysis of the nature of games is created that can
be used to guide the design of relevant play practices and reflect meaningfully on
player performance (Piltz, 2003b). Launder (2001) provides a framework for sport
educators to guide the process of teaching in and through games by defining the
processes of shaping, focusing and enhancing the play. The strategy of shaping a
practice involves manipulating a wide range of variables including playing space,
numbers, rules, equipment, the nature of the goal, the scoring, and by introducing
conditions to create a specific learning environment. Focusing the play ensures that
emphasis is given to specific elements of skilled play. This is important because in
games based contexts many elements are developed concurrently and therefore proper
focusing can impact on both the quality and direction of a practice. Enhancing the
play involves using novelty, challenge and other strategies to engage player interest
and commitment to purposeful play. Action fantasy games and cameo player roles are
specific examples of enhancing the play (Launder, 2001, p153)
These and other aspects of Play Practice have been embedded into the American
Sport Education Program (Martens, 2004), and the most recent guide to Sport
Education (Siedentop, Hastie & Mars, 2004).
The intent of this paper is to highlight the underpinning theory of this approach and
apply the principles of Play Practice to the teaching and coaching of the non contact
version of the game of Lacrosse. The paper will illustrate a teaching framework that
aligns learner needs with game demands and uses meaningful game challenges to
develop all elements of effective play in Lacrosse. This sequence has been
successfully implemented with novice participants in a variety of teaching & coaching
settings (Piltz, 2003b; Thompson, 1998).
The Play Practice approach seeks to ‘tap into the intrinsic enjoyment and fun of
playing’ (Launder & Piltz, 2006, p 48) to encourage active and purposeful
involvement. Subsequently it seeks to build intrinsic motivation by using games as
key learning experiences that are shaped to produce challenges that match task and
player ability and provide the potential for all participants to experience success and
enjoyment (Launder, 2001). By focusing on developing a task mastery orientation
sport educators are able to positively influence the development of intrinsic
motivation, and promote the development of competent and confident players
(Chandler, 1996; Cresswell, Hodge & Kidman, 2006; Mitchell & Chandler, 1992;
Stork, 2001). Brain based learning theory also indicates the positive effects and
benefits of promoting intrinsic motivation over external reward systems and
highlights the value of engaging appropriate emotions in learning (Fogarty, 1997;
Hannaford, 1995; Jensen, 1998; Light, 2003). Launder (2001) postulates that it is the
feelings of enjoyment associated with competence, not just fun that serve as a
significant source of internal motivation for both purposeful participation and long
term commitment and involvement in sport. This view is supported by
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) who uses the term ‘flow’, Kretchmar (2005) refers to
‘delight’ and Heywood (2001) uses ‘joy’ to describe the emotional state of enjoyment
that serves as a powerful source of internal motivation for human behaviour. These
authors also differentiate fun from enjoyment and align enjoyment with competence,
fulfilment and achievement as the basis of intrinsic motivation. The affective domain
has been highlighted as a significant area for investigation in games education
because of the implications for children’s motivation to participate in lifelong
physical activity (Holt, Strean, Bengoechea & Garcia, 2002; Holt, Bengoechea,
Strean, & Williams, 2004).
The third strand relates to the ‘competencies needed to participate effectively and
enjoyably’ in the activity or sport (Launder, 2001, p 46). Launder (2001) describes
these competencies as elements of effective (skilful) play including technique, agility,
understanding the rules, tactics, strategy, reading the play, communication, endurance,
resilience, a sense of fair play and game sense. By clarifying these terms into a model
of effective/ skilful play sport educators are able to better appreciate the highly
complex phenomenon of skilled game performance. Skill in games involves ‘doing
the right thing at the right time’ and it is best described as the ‘combination of games
sense with other elements of play’ (Launder & Piltz, 2006, p51). When the model is
applied to practice it is easy to appreciate how the relative importance of these
elements depends on the nature of the game and on the circumstances at any instance
within the game. It is also important to note the significance of these elements vary
with the age, ability and cultural experiences of each group of participants so sport
educators need to focus on the development of the most important elements for their
participant needs (Launder & Piltz, 2006).
Changing the method of scoring from shooting into a small goal to using a larger end
zone space eliminates the need for a goal keeper and promotes greater success in
scoring. The three primary rules provide the essential structure to the game and
promote inclusive participation. The non contact rule (body and stick) ensures player
safety and it requires players to interpret the rule and understand how responsibility
for contact is determined. Restricting the loose ball contest to one player from each
team eliminates the congestion associated with contesting a free ball and it also helps
players to value off ball support positioning. The 4 second carry limit is essential for
ensuring equal opportunity for both teams to gain access to the ball, it promotes team
work and also allows time for creative individual play. Other rule ‘conditions’ can be
introduced within the context of game play as the situational need arises. For
example a rotation of the goalie when a goal is scored or at set time intervals ensures
sharing of roles, a possession in each half before an attempt at goal encourages team
play and a male female pass pattern before scoring promotes gender inclusive play.
This early game experience is fun for participants plus it allows them to appreciate
how the game operates and to discover the influence of key rules on game play. This
game experience places participant learning in context and it enables them to develop
an understanding of all of the elements that constitute effective play. The sport
educator is able observe and assess the participants’ capabilities from a variety of
perspectives including the various elements of effective play, individual responsibility
and team cooperation. This provides an authentic benchmark for measuring future
improvement and a relevant foundation upon which new learning can be introduced
and practised in a meaningful way.
These games are enhanced by structuring a short time frame interval for the games (5
-10 min) and rotating teams regularly. Interval time between games is scheduled to
open up opportunities for reflection and learning from the game. The teacher is able
to facilitate learning in a variety of ways based on their observation and analysis of
the play context. Individuals and teams are also able use the interval time to take on
responsibility to arbitrate and clarify any issues that may arise in the game or to share
game play ideas. In the initial few rounds of games the main focus is on the
participants’ ability to apply the key rules in the game (games sense). This can be
quickly extended to include basic tactical positioning in attack and defense and
mobility when in possession of the ball. Other student learning outcomes such as
personal responsibility, fair play, effort, empathy for the umpire can also feature as a
specific focus.
Following these technical challenges players return to the End Zone game using the
Lacrosse equipment. All other aspects of the game remain the same as does the play
interval time structure. Before commencing play the issue of personal responsibility
for safe participation can be reiterated by clarifying the no contact rule as it relates to
possible stick contact. When in the defending role players are focused on maintaining
body position stick distance away from the ball carrier with their stick held vertical to
attempt to intercept the pass. Attack players in possession of the ball are focused on
moving to space and passing the ball wide of the defender to avoid endangering the
defender. During the game intervals the teacher is again able to facilitate learning by
drawing out key features from observation of the game play. The initial focus for
observation is on the application of rules particularly those relating to safety however
the game context also provides information on other elements of effective play
including technique, positioning, reading the play, tactics and games sense. In
addition the teacher is able to observe for inclusive involvement, fair play, the
umpiring role and team cooperation. Participants are encouraged to take leadership
during the intervals to attend to rule clarification or address any other issues and via
the process of arbitration.
This pattern of teaching ‘in and through’ the game continues in the sessions that
follow for the duration of the Lacrosse unit. It is based on a ‘revolving, expanding
analysis of student needs’ (Launder, 2001, p 51) set within relevant game contexts.
This process is dependent on continuous, perceptive observation and analysis by
reflective sport educators who can orchestrate continuous improvement in skilful play
for all participants. Higher order teaching capabilities are required to fully master this
complex process and these are best developed by refining game knowledge and
through reflective experience (Launder, 2001; Piltz, 2002). Participants undertake an
active learning role within this type of lesson structure by engaging in problem based
game play, reflection, discussion, clarification, observation and analysis of the various
elements of effective play (Richard & Wallian, 2005).
Possession games that promote effective passing and receiving within a half court
space starting with 4 attackers and one defender (4v1) and progressing to 3v1
introduces the elements of reading the play, decision making and accurate technical
execution. These games duplicate play patterns that occur in the game based on quick
control of the ball, scanning to read the defenders position and decide on the best
option and pass accordingly. Scoring is based on consecutive safe passes in attack
and defenders switch when they touch of the ball or after a determined time.
Defenders are learning to read the play, position themselves, anticipate and block
passes as well as resilience to persist with effort to force an error. The 3v1 focuses
players on key tactical principles including support in attack by using thoughtful
mobility to create a good passing angle. This game can easily be extended to 4v2,
5v3 within appropriate playing space to further encourage the concept of playing in
triangles with increased defensive distraction. The key areas of focus in these play
practices can be readily transferred back into the Lacrosse games and developed
further through strategies such as manipulating the scoring to add a bonus for
demonstrating these principles, using freeze replay to pause the play and review
tactical positioning with the players or through questioning and interacting during the
interval time periods. During this time the end zone space in the game is reduced and
brought in from the back line so that play can occur behind the goal which is a unique
feature of Lacrosse. The goal and ‘mock goalie’ can be included. In order to counter
the negative transfer that players experience from most other games where play does
not extend beyond goal line, the goal can even be turned around to face the backline
for a short play period.
Once the goal is introduced a series of ‘go for goal’ games can be created that enable
players to become familiar with using the space behind the goal as well as consolidate
tactical concepts and decision making. This can begin in a conditioned 2 v1
(expanded to 3v2, 5v3, 4v2) go for goal game that is played in half court play space
where attackers must move the ball behind the goal before they can attempt to score.
This condition focuses attackers on how to work from behind the goal by effectively
read the play, using mobility, making good decisions and using techniques. Support
attackers are able to work on communication, mobility and support positioning in
relation to the angle on goal and technique. These games can be made into
continuous go for goal games (3v1, 3v2, 4v3) to introduce the principles of a fast
break. Attackers learn to move quickly to support positions and use good passing to
maintain possession of the ball to draw defender(s) out of position in order to create
space to be able to score. Defenders build their appreciation of the importance of
delay on the ball and support cover positioning that is required to work effectively as
a team to hold out the attacker, intercept or force an error. During this time it is
possible to introduce the specific role of the goal keeper. This can be facilitated
through as series of progressions that include an appreciation of proper positioning,
agility and technique. The goal keeper must wear appropriate protective equipment
including a helmet/ face mask and once they are introduced into game play it is
necessary to ensure that the rules associated with the goal circle, goalie and the
defending restrictions for the immediate space in front of the goal are clarified to
ensure safe participation. Any of the go for goal games explained earlier can be
revisited with the inclusion of the goalie. This provides an opportunity to focus on
communication and other specific tactical aspects relating to goal keeping such as
clearing.
Conclusion
The framework illustrated in this paper provides the foundation for developing
participants’ capabilities as skilful Lacrosse players using a games based approach to
teaching and coaching that is aligned with pedagogical theory. The progressive game
based structure fosters player interest and builds intrinsic motivation through success
and engagement in joyful play experiences. Sport educators working with players
beyond the novice level must have a comprehensive understanding of the nature of
Lacrosse in order to ensure that players remain challenged and motivated beyond the
foundation level provided in this paper. All sport educators are encouraged to reflect
on their current approach and make use of the ideas presented in this paper to
continuously improve their professional practice.
References
Piltz, W. (2003b). Student teachers and Play Practice. Paper presented at the 2nd
International Conference: Teaching games and Sport for Understanding,
Melbourne, December.
Piltz, W. (2004). Reading the Game: A key component of effective instruction in
teaching and coaching. In 2nd International Conference: Teaching games and
Sport for Understanding. Proceedings (pp 79-89). Viewed 16/11/06
<http://www.conferences.unimelb.edu.au/sport/proceedings/PROCEEDINGS.
pdf>
Read, B. (1989). Artisans, players and gods: a reflection on the teaching of games.
Physical education review, 12(2), 134-137.
Richard, J., & Wallian, N. (2005). Emphasizing student engagement in the
construction of game performance. In L. Griffin & J. Butler (Eds) Teaching
games for understanding Theory, Research and Practice (pp 19-32).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Rink, J. (1996). Effective instruction in physical education. In S. Silverman & C.
Ennis (Eds) Student learning in Physical Education Applying Research to
enhance Instruction (pp 171-198). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Rink, J. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 20, 112-128.
Rink, J., French, K., & Tjeerdsma, B. (1996). Foundations for the learning and
instruction of sports and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
15, 397-398.
Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport Education: quality PE through positive sport experiences.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Siedentop, D. (2002). Sport Education: A retrospective. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 21, 409-418.
Siedentop, D., Hastie., P & Mars, H. (2004). Complete guide to Sport Education.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Slade, D. (2004). Theory to Practice: ‘Stick2Hockey’ In 2nd International Conference:
Teaching games and Sport for Understanding. Proceedings (pp 90-98).
Viewed 16/11/06
<http://www.conferences.unimelb.edu.au/sport/proceedings/PROCEEDINGS.
pdf>
Stork, S. (2001). When playing is learning. Teaching Elementary Physical Education,
Jan, 30-31.
Thompson, M.(1998). Lacrosse NCAS Quadrennial review of the Level 1 Lacrosse
Program - Re accreditation report. Australian Sports Commission.
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., & Bunker, D. (1996). Teaching games for understanding:
evolution of a model. JOPERD - The journal of physical education, recreation
& dance, 67(1), 28-33.
Wright, S., Fry, J., McNeill, M., Tan, W., Tan, K & Schemp, P. (2001). An
investigation of a curriculum innovation in physical education. Paper
presented at Australian Association for Research in Education Annual
Conference, Perth, December.
Influencing Professional Practice in Games Education
through Working Models and Principle Based Experiential
Learning
Wendy Piltz
University of South Australia
Introduction
Student teachers in the Health and Physical Education (H&PE) learning area are
required to teach across a wide variety of movement mediums including the diverse
and complex realm of games and sports. This presents a considerable challenge for
beginning educators as they begin to confront dominant discourses in sport and
consider ways of managing chaotic environments to facilitate meaningful learning
outcomes for participants. The task is difficult because the capacity to influence the
development of competent and confident game players requires a clear appreciation of
the components required to participate effectively in the activity coupled with an
appreciation of the learners’ needs and capabilities. In addition, it requires a range of
‘higher order’ observation and analysis capabilities in order to make sense of the
chaotic game environment and provide meaningful feedback (Piltz, 2004). Most
novice educators are primarily concerned with managing the learning environment
and beginning to apply foundation pedagogy principles relating to presentation of the
task, communication, participation and positioning.
The purpose of this paper is to report on the findings of a study that investigated the
value of ‘working models’ used within an initial pre service ‘experiential based’
course of study in Health and Physical Education at the University of South Australia.
Results indicate that the model of effective ‘skilful’ play and the P’s model of
Pedagogy are significant learning tools that assist novice educators to develop their
teaching capabilities, build personal confidence and improve their reflective capacity.
These models provide an operational framework to assist student teachers to plan and
evaluate meaningfully, to make sense of complex, chaotic game environments and to
identify key principles for quality teaching and learning.
Rovegno (2003) suggests that teacher knowledge is complex, practical and ‘personal’
because it operates within and is shaped by practice and it is constructed over time
through experience. Schon (1990) indicates that professionals who operate
effectively in unpredictable zones of practice demonstrate a unique ‘artistry’ a form of
‘knowing in action’ that includes the capability to reflect ‘in and on’ action.
Similarly O’Sullivan (2003) recognises the significance of teacher ‘knowledge in
practice’ and distinguishes it from knowledge for practice and knowledge of practice.
Grimmett & MacKinnon (1992) refer to the form of knowledge that emerges from
engaged experience and reflection in the practice setting as craft knowledge. This
includes pedagogical content knowledge associated with teachers’ representations of
content material and how it might be effectively taught and pedagogical learner
knowledge allied to procedural ways of engaging and enhancing learner focused
teaching in the midst of classroom action. Both forms of pedagogical knowledge are
derived from a ‘considered response to experience and form over time in the through
the process of reflection’ (Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992, p 387). Grimmett and
MacKinnon (1992, p 438) suggest that craft knowledge is significant for developing
skilful, reflective and empowered practitioners because it provides a ‘sensitizing
framework’ to explore the multifaceted dimensions of teaching and learning within a
context of critical inquiry and reflection. Through this process of ‘learning by doing’
novices are able to strengthen teaching capabilities, build personal confidence,
challenge personal beliefs, construct meaning and take ownership of their professional
development (Collier & Herbert, 2004; Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992; Launder,
1993; O’Sullivan, 2003; Schon, 1990).
Student teachers bring their own personal experiences, beliefs and perceptions about
teaching with them into teacher preparation courses. These prior experiences shape
individual perceptions and personal beliefs, they are powerful influences that impact
on the way new information is accepted, interpreted and integrated into professional
practice (Trangaridou & O’Sullivan, 2003; Rovegno, 1992). Tinning (2004) indicates
that many physical education student teachers carry personal perceptions, beliefs,
values and behaviours about sport and physical activity that form a barrier to critical
reflection and impact on the way new information is accepted and applied. Personal
beliefs and established traditional practices in games teaching have also been
identified as major constraints influencing beginning physical education teachers’
acceptance and implementation of innovations in game pedagogy. Studies (Butler,
1996; McDonald & Glover, 1997; Light, 2002) indicate that despite exposure to new
teaching approaches in games education during pre service programs beginning
students often revert to conventional practice in their early years of teaching. Launder
(2001) indicates that inappropriate pedagogical practices including ‘technique’
dominated mindless drills, irrelevant minor games and laissez-faire game play are
perpetuated due to a lack of clarity in the language of sport and a limitation in the
definition of ‘skilful performance’ in sport. He suggests that the misuse of the word
‘skill’ and a lack of clarity of other important terms such as tactics, strategy, game
plan together with a general lack of understanding of what is needed to play games
effectively have collectively resulted in the difficulties in influencing change in
professional practice.
A qualitative approach was used in this study and the methodology was situated in the
Interpretivist paradigm. Participants in the study were student teachers beginning
their Bachelor of Education studies (Middle –Secondary) in Health and Physical
Education(H&PE) at the University of South Australia. The qualitative nature of the
research enabled a contextual investigation of the students’ perceptions of the value
and efficacy of the two working models (model of effective/skilful play and the P’s of
Pedagogy) used in the initial course of study titled Health and Physical Education 1
(Leininger 1985). At the completion of the course students completed a course
evaluation and a short questionnaire containing open ended questions relating to their
teaching experience and the models used during the course. Thirty eight (38) students
of the class of 44 were in attendance and participated in the study. Qualitative data
from the questionnaire focusing on working models was collated and analyzed by
identifying emerging themes and common perspectives (Patton 2002).
Experiential based course structure
Following these workshops students are involved in ‘lab school’ teaching (PE) with a
group of 15-20 upper primary children. During this time the student teacher is fully
responsible for planning, preparation and teaching a series of six 50 min lessons over
a six week period. The lab school provides a context for learning that is relevant,
aligned to the real world and where theory is meaningfully entwined and applied to
practice. This type of experience enables student teachers to confront real problems
and discover possible solutions in their own way. As student teachers plan, teach and
evaluate the series of lessons they are provided with the opportunity to demonstrate
teaching capabilities, develop craft knowledge, process constructive criticism and
utilize critical reflection (Garrett & Piltz, 2000). The Lab school experience is
supported by a variety of strategies to develop reflective thinking and to maximize
students’ learning. Senior students take on the role as ‘peer mentors’ in the Lab
School program by acting as a supportive, critical friend. The mentors have
experienced the lab school program in the previous year which means they are
acquainted with its structure and they have high levels of empathy with the beginning
students. The student teachers systematically evaluate each lesson and complete a
series of focus sheets containing probing and reflective questions relating to critical
issues in the learning environment. Further opportunity for students to reflect and
discuss any specific events arising from the Lab school occurs in a weekly class
debrief facilitated by the University lecturer.
Students are introduced to both working models (model of effective /skilful play and
the P’s of Pedagogy) during the initial workshops and they are continuously applied
in the planning and evaluation processes for the lab school teaching experiences.
Progression in learning
What have you found to be the most effective ways to use progression in learning to
facilitate success for the students?
Personalised
Were you able to cater for individual differences within the class? Provide examples.
Playful
How important is this element in your teaching and why is it important?
Responses from students indicated the P’s framework (Launder, 1989, 2001) enabled
them to identify areas of teaching that are significant for student learning and
consequently it provided clear guidelines for their teaching practice. A consistent
theme that emerged from the data was the importance of the model for providing a
structure for developing teaching capabilities. Students suggested that the model
helped them to understand what is expected in teaching and enabled them to plan for
their own personal and professional development.
..able to set personal expectations and identify specific areas to work on (r p)
..provides a structure for me to recognize what areas of my teaching I need to
work on (r l)
Responses also indicated how the framework provides a template for reflection and
self evaluation that encourages responsibility and ownership of professional
improvement.
.. enabled me to take notice of factors that I had not considered & allowed me to
think and evaluate effective teaching strategies (r f)
.. a useful tool for evaluation (r j)
Responses from students conclusively suggest (100% response) that the model of
effective/skilful play was significant in assisting them to teach games effectively. It
enabled the students to gain a better understanding of the nature of the activities and
provided them with a sound basis for their planning.
.. an excellent guide to what is required for any sport that you are teaching (r v)
.. allowed me to think about what aspects of skilful play I am trying to develop
during the lesson (r e)
..helped me to choose activities that are pertinent (r e)
..made it easier to plan effective learning experiences (r h)
The model’s clear terminology assisted students with game analysis and allowed them
to identify relationships between different activities. It also helped students
understand the importance of structuring relevant game like learning experiences, to
plan for progression and to provide authentic feedback.
..provides guidelines for what to look for when observing students’ performance
.. helps when providing pertinent feedback (r a)
..I often ask myself how is this relevant, when does this occur in the game?(r r)
.. reduces complexities and enables me to arrange my thoughts & create a
checklist to aid feedback (r j)
Another significant finding was that students were able to use the model to identify
learner capabilities and draw on this information for planning relevant learning
experiences.
..a way to evaluate where a student is at (r k)
Conclusion
Student teachers who participate in context based learning environments including lab
school experiences in physical education improve their personal confidence and
competence in teaching and begin to demonstrate capabilities of critically reflective
educators (Garrett & Piltz, 2000). This study has highlighted the value and
significance of two working models as learning tools used within an experiential
based learning course for student teachers in Physical Education. These models assist
individuals to make sense of the complex and chaotic teaching environment in
Physical Education and provide a safe framework for challenging dominant
discourses and personal beliefs. In so doing this presents teacher and coach educators
with an opportunity to influence traditional perspectives and lead to sustained change
in the quality of professional practice in physical education and sport education.
Novice educators who are developing their craft knowledge would benefit from
applying the P’s of pedagogy as a working model for instruction within a context
based learning environment. Student teachers and coaches can use these models to
better appreciate learner capabilities, to plan purposefully, to focus games based
learning and to provide feedback. Importantly these models provide novice sport and
physical educators with a lens to guide reflection, direct meaningful evaluation of
professional practice and encourage ownership of personal development. By
clarifying terms and defining concepts of effective sport performance the model of
skilful play enables educators to gain a clearer appreciation of the complexity of
games and sports and influence the quality of professional practice in games and sport
education.
References
Garrett, R., & Piltz, W. (2000). Knowing in action and reflection: The lab school
experience. Paper Presented at the International Pre Olympic Congress on
Sport Science, Sports Medicine and Physical Education. Brisbane, September 7-
12.
Launder, A.G. (1989). The P’s of perfect pedagogy. Sports Coach, (April), 21-23.
Launder, A.G. (1993). Coach education for the twenty first century. Sports Coach,
Guest Editorial, (Jan March), 2.
Launder, A. G. (2001). Play practice. The games approach to teaching and coaching
sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Launder, A., Piltz, W., & Launder, D. (1994). It’s only work if your would rather be
doing something else: Proceedings of the National Coaching Conference—Doing
it better, Canberra, December 1-3, 1994 (pp. 93-97), Australian Coaching
Council.
Dennis Slade
Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Introduction
Kirk and MacPhail’s (2002) paper provided a rationale for the inclusion of the notion
of situated learning and legitimate student peripheral and prior experience within their
expanded TGfU model. On the other hand, Holt, Strean and Bengoechea (2002)
argued that the social context of sport also had the potential to impact on a player’s
affective domain. Hence they suggest that the effect on the learner of the context of
where games are learnt must be a major focus of TGfU based instruction.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss and present results from a project that taught
novices field hockey1 using a TGfU instructional method based on the Kirk and
MacPhail (2002) reformulated model of TGfU. The investigation explored three
questions. First, does the TGfU model of game instruction produce positive
declarative knowledge outcomes related to game concept, tactics and strategies?
Secondly, and in response to the direction suggested by Holt et al (2002), can a TGfU
approach impact on learner’s affective domain in terms of their perspectives on
enjoyment and the ability to make a positive contribution to a team? Finally, and
closely related to the second question, does a TGfU approach to game instruction
have the potential to impact positively in terms of gender bias in the physical
education context?
1
Within this article field hockey will be referred to as hockey.
The paper has four sections. The first discusses the reformulated Kirk and MacPhail
(2002) TGfU model, highlighting aspects of the model applied within the project. The
second section outlines the methodology of the project, including relating the use of
the TGfU hockey programme Stick2Hockey (Slade, 2003) to the Kirk and MacPhail
model. The third section of the paper presents and discusses the results of the project
in relation to both the Kirk and MacPhail and Holt et al, models. Finally, some
conclusions and observations based on the study are presented.
Fig. 1
The Kirk and MacPhail reformulated TGfU Model (2002).
Fundamental to the Kirk and MacPhail (2002) model are two steps, ‘Game Concept
and Situated Performance’ (See Fig. 1). In explaining the Game concept step in the
model, Kirk and MacPhail emphasised that developing an understanding of a game
was more than merely memorising the rules, positions and other aspects of a game’s
declarative knowledge. They suggested that the initial modified learning experience
had to take place within a context of learning that, to a greater extent, replicated the
authentic game concept and structure. They emphasised that part of the emerging
understanding leading to an appreciation of the game concept obviously required
learners to learn rules and positions. They argued that if players could grasp those
concepts then they were more likely to understand the game’s tactics and strategies.
Crucially, they contended, that such learning should be acquired through playing the
game. They suggested that game declarative knowledge taught this way would result
in strategic thinking players.
The second step that is fundamental to the model is the notion of situated learning.
Situated learning is defined by Kirk and MacPhail (2002) as “an active process of
engagement with socially organised forms of subject matter” (p184). They suggested
that the social organization of the subject matter derives from various communities
such as school settings, media representations of sport and cultural perspectives. They
conclude that students are legitimate peripheral participants in these communities of
practices and that they require learning contexts and experiences that they perceive as
authentic. In this project the key to providing an authentic situated learning context
was to discover what the students’ expectations were of the game; what they thought
hockey would feel like to play. Within the Kirk and MacPhail model this related to
their concepts of a situated learning and legitimate peripheral participation.
Discovering those expectations was also considered crucial in meeting some of the
research directions suggested by Holt et al, 2002. It was important to discover prior to
the instructional programme who the learners were in respect of their previous
experience of hockey. This not only included playing experience but their
understanding of what hockey might feel like to play. Reproducing that expectation of
what hockey might feel like to play was considered to be an important factor in
providing students with an enjoyable learning experience. Thorpe (1992, cited in Holt
et al, 2002) suggested that a TGfU approach to game instruction had the potential to
“capitalise on affiliation, i.e., social interaction, social reassurance and making
friends” (p167). This study sought to discover, before and after the instructional
period, information on aspects of team affiliation related to games instruction such as
whether the students thought they could contribute to the performance of their team.
These questions were addressed in Stage 1 of the investigation.
While hockey does not get extensive media coverage in New Zealand, internationals
between New Zealand and visiting teams and National League finals are frequently
televised on ‘free to air’ national network television channels. Hence there was an
expectation that the students in the programme might have seen some elite level
hockey. Those that had witnessed the game would therefore bring to the programme
of instruction; expectations of what Kirk and MacPhail (2002) refer to as, 'legitimate
peripheral participation' and 'situated performance.' In this study it was discovered
that 60% of the students had seen hockey played either on television or in live formal
match conditions. Trying to then ensure that novices experienced authentic learning
experiences as they related to the feel of hockey was achieved through the use of the
2
TGfU introductory hockey programme Stick2Hockey (Slade, 2003). Within the
context of teaching in this project it was anticipated that the structure of the
Stick2hockey programme would provide a physical playing sensation that matched the
learners situated learning and other peripherally experienced declarative knowledge of
the game.
2
The author has previously argued, Second International TGfU conference, (Slade, 2003, Melbourne,
published proceedings) that this programme, Stick2hockey (Slade, 2003) does conform to the Kirk and
MacPhail (2002) rethought model of TGfU.
experience in hockey while recognising individual learning needs. For example, the
very first instruction in the Stick2hockey programme takes place within a team
environment where qualities of teamwork and cooperation are emphasised. However,
technique development also takes place at an individual level. This is achieved
through the specific drills and game experiences built into the Stick2hockey
programme. For example, the structure of the final game in Stick2Hockey allows for
individuals to play the game either incorporating specific hockey skills or maintaining
the generic fundamental movement skills employed in the opening games. This
enables the learners to dictate their own pace in the application of techniques. This
structure allows for the sometimes-huge discrepancy of ability that one finds in the
school physical education class environment. The structure allows the expert and the
novice to play a game where domain specific procedural knowledge does not have to
discriminate between their ability to play, have fun and apply tactics and strategies
within the game.
In developing the game concept of the Kirk and MacPhail model of TGfU, the
modified introductory Stick2hockey games, Roll-a-ball and Stick2it provided a
context that conveyed to the learners the concept, form, structure and related tactics
and strategies of hockey. Kirk and MacPhail note that helping the learner make such
connections is one of the key outcomes for teachers and coaches hoping to provide
authentic game learning experiences. In addition to making those connections, the
players received cues (see Fig 1) from the instructors on other components of
declarative hockey knowledge associated with the rules of restarts, penalties and
safety. A shared understanding of the rules of a game is fundamental to having
players play a game against an opponent.
Instruction of games and affected outcomes in physical education contexts has not
always been viewed positively. Indeed Light (2003) and Light and Georgakis (2005)
document interviews from teacher trainees reflecting on their school physical
education experiences in a negative light. Similarly Williams, (1992, 1994 and 1996)
in oft-quoted articles on affective outcomes in physical education, thought aspects of
game instruction in physical education so poor that he referred to them as the physical
educators ‘hall of shame.’ Consequently, within this study, it was thought that a
measure of the success of the introduction to the game of hockey in terms of affective
outcomes might be observed within the players socially constructed perceptions of
whether or not they thought they would enjoy playing the game. It was also
hypothesised that such measures of enjoyment post the instruction might indicate
whether they thought the game felt as they anticipated it would. Another measure of
enjoyment would be in relation to whether or not they thought they would be able to
contribute to the performance of their team in either their understanding of the rules
and tactics of the game or through their actual playing ability. These questions all
related to Thorpe’s (1992) and Holt et al’s (2002) perception of the need to place the
learner at the centre of research in TGfU and to discover whether a TGfU approach to
game instruction promoted such affective domain outcomes.
Methodology:
The project was conducted in three stages. Stage 1 required students from the two
composite years 7 & 8 classes (ages 11 - 13, N = 58) to complete a survey. The
survey established their previous hockey playing experience, knowledge of rules (four
questions), tactics (seven questions) and perceptions of their likely enjoyment (self-
esteem related) of playing hockey (four questions). The 60% of students who had
either played or seen hockey played were also asked to say what they thought hockey
should ‘feel’ like to play. This last task was achieved through students selecting from
3
New Zealand Intermediate schools are the equivalent of a senior primary / junior secondary school. They are
coeducational and cover two years of schooling, Years 7 and 8 – ages 11 – 13 years. Students go to secondary
school after Intermediate school.
alternative groups of adjectives words that might describe their perceptions of what
hockey might feel like to play.
Stage 2 consisted of six groups of students receiving instruction over two weeks from
the trainee teachers (also in groups) using the Stick2Hockey TGfU hockey programme
and playing a mini-tournament. To reinforce and develop the players shared
understanding of the rules and other components of declarative hockey knowledge,
the teachers used breaks in games, e.g., ball out, to question students on rules related
to restarts in hockey.
Instruction also utilized two of Stick2Hockey’s generic tactical games that teach zone-
defence and outlet-passing concepts. Teachers observing the correct transfer of such
tactics back in the hockey games were required to stop the games and quiz the
students as to why they had just used that tactic. This was done to reflect the TGfU
constructivist instruction philosophy of ensuring that tactics forced on players through
the configuration of the TGfU games were registered at conscious levels and to
positively reinforce good-play.
Stage 3, completed after the practical instruction, required the students to again
complete the Stage 1 survey questionnaire in order to measure any changes brought
about by the instruction given at Stage 2.
Stage 2 of the investigation had required that this knowledge of hockey be taught to
students within the contexts of the games. The teachers were instructed that they
should seize opportunities to teach or reinforce content knowledge about ‘restarts in
hockey’ by reminding students, for example, that after a goal has been scored in
hockey the restart takes place in the middle of the field at half way. This type of direct
instruction following goals and also through asking appropriate questions of students
in relation to these rules resulted in an average score across these questions on the
same test in the Stage 3 post programme survey, of an 85% correct response.
(a) Stand still and watch to see if they receive the ball.
(b) Call out to them and encourage them to get to your pass.
(c) Move to a new supporting space on the field in case your teammate wants to
pass the ball back to you.
Stage 1 pre programme results on the tactical and strategic questions produced on
average, across all tactical questions, a 62% correct response.
The Stick2hockey (Slade, 2003) programme also incorporates generic tactical games.
Two used in this project taught tactical concepts of zone defence, outlet passing, man-
to-man marking, and dodging into space to receive passes. After teaching the
student’s these specific games and back in the hockey games the teachers were told to
quiz the students on their use of these tactics at what were deemed teaching moments.
Affective domain
Games and teams do not of themselves always lead to positive student experiences.
For example, if you do not feel you are contributing to the team performance it is hard
to feel part of the team. Hence a measure of the effectiveness of the TGfU instruction
in this project would be the extent to which instruction promoted qualities of team
affiliation and game enjoyment.
The Stage 1 survey questions in the affective domain posed questions such as – ‘Do
you think you will enjoy playing hockey?’ or ‘Do you think you will be able to
contribute to your teams performance?’ On the question of do you think you will
enjoy playing hockey 31% of the students were sure that they would not enjoy the
game; 48% were unsure, while 11% claimed they thought they would enjoy/love
playing the games.
The Stage 3 post programme survey revealed that only one student claimed not to
have enjoyed the games while a combined 98% stated that hockey was either ‘okay to
play (51%) or that ‘they loved it!’(47%).
The question regarding whether students felt they could or did contribute to their
team’s performance was considered to be very important in terms of their feelings of
satisfaction with the programme. The Stage 1 survey revealed that only 12% of
students were positive that they would make a positive contribution to their team’s
performance while 52% were certain that they would not contribute and 36% were
unsure.
By Stage 3, post the programme of instruction, only 7% of the students felt they did
not make a positive contribution to their team performance while 48% thought they
probably did and 43% were sure they contributed positively. Having 93% of all
students feeling that they did or probably did contribute positively to their team’s
performance suggests a high level of student satisfaction with the learning experience.
The data suggests that the adoption of the TGfU methodology of hockey instruction
resulted in a positive situated learning experience with students stating that the game
felt as they anticipated it would feel. Even for those in the study for whom hockey
was a new sport their experience of it reflected the components of speed, running and
passing that elite level hockey players experience. The study also showing that in
general the players felt their self esteem relative to beliefs of enjoyment, playing
ability and the ability to make a positive contribution to their team’s performance had
improved.
Summary of survey results: Stages 1 and 3
Category Stage 1: Pre TGfU Stage 3: Survey post
instruction survey TGfU Stick2Hockey
instruction programme
Playing status 80% novice
Knowledge of basic restart 60% correct response. 85% correct response.
rules of field hockey.
Tactical and strategic 62% correct response. 75% correct response.
questions.
Self-esteem questions
Do you think you will 21% think they will. 98% stated they did.
enjoy playing hockey?
Do you think you will 12% think they will. 91% thought they did.
make a positive
contribution to your team’s
performance?
What should hockey feel Of the 60% of students
like to play? who had seen hockey
played, all anticipated that
hockey would be a fast,
running, dodging, passing
and goal scoring game.
What did hockey feel like 100% of students identified
to play? that hockey had felt like a
fast, running, dodging,
passing and goal scoring
game.
Table 1
Gender bias:
Research by Chepyator-Thomson and Ennis (1997) and Siedentop and Tannehill,
(2000) suggests gender bias is nearly always present in physical education classes. In
such classes it is claimed that girls frequently undervalue their contribution and suffer
from stereotypical expectations of their likely performance. Typically this manifests
itself in girls not overly exerting themselves or being overtly vigorous. Anecdotally,
teachers of physical education can frequently be heard to comment that girls do not
always participate as fully as boys. In light of such research and anecdotal
observations an analysis of the survey data in relation to the affective domain
questions was undertaken that focused on female responses.
The final question sought female responses to whether they thought they would
(Stage 1) or did (Stage 3) enjoy the hockey programme. Their responses were
considered to be an important motivational indicator for likely perseverance in
specifically continuing with hockey or generally finding enjoyment from vigorous
physical activity. In Stage 1, 86% of the female students were either equivocal or sure
that they would not enjoy playing hockey. In Stage 3, post the instruction, 100%
stated they either probably or definitely did enjoy playing hockey.
Table 2
One student noted that learning games incorporating a tactical approach meant that
although she was still not especially “great at throwing or catching..she could still
contribute..strategically in defence or in attack.” The student continues, “ learning
basketball this way gave me a feeling of achievement and satisfaction that I have
never experienced in sports” (Light, 2003, p 98).
Another student from Light’s (2003) study notes that in relation to learning games at
school:
“I never knew what was going on or what I was supposed to do. I had
no idea but here with the games we did I actually understood what
was going on and felt like I actually contributed to the team, and that
was enjoyable for a change.” (Light, 2003, p 99)
The Stage 1 data from this project also clearly indicates that the majority of female
students thought that they had very little knowledge of the rules or tactics (what goes
on) of hockey, and they did not anticipate enjoying the lessons. By Stage 3 of the
project, the majority indicated that they knew the rules and tactics (what goes on) of
hockey and they were able to make a positive contribution to their team. In summary
therefore, they appeared to have enjoyed the activity for the same reasons noted in
Light’s (2003) and Light and Georgakis’s (2005) studies.
Gender bias
The author does not contend that this was a major investigation into gender bias in
physical education classes. Nor should it be suggested that TGfU is a ‘silver-bullet’ in
the face of perceived gender bias in game instruction in physical education classes.
The programme was relatively short. It had excitement value in that it was novel and
having teacher trainees instruct the teams was not the usual scenario of one teacher to
a class of 25-30 students. Indeed, many of the other factors associated with gender
bias and lesson delivery, for example, language, were not addressed. However, the
Stage 3 post instruction survey in this project revealed extremely positive results in
terms of improved female students measures of self-esteem relative to the game
instruction. The results indicated that the vast majority of girls felt confident in their
understanding of basic rules and tactics. Importantly they felt they experienced a
game in the manner that they anticipated it would feel; they enjoyed the experience
and stated (93%) that they probably or did make a positive contribution to their team.
Conclusion
References:
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in the secondary
school. Bulletin of Physical Education, 10, 9-16.
Chepyator-Thomson, J., & Ennis, C (1997). Reproduction and resistance to the
culture of femminity and masculinity in secondary school physical education.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 89-99.
Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B., & Bengoechea, E.G. (2002). Expanding the Teaching
Games for Understanding Model: New Avenues for Future Research and
Practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education. Vol 21, No.2 January.
pp. 162-176.
Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching Games for Understanding and Situated
Learning: Rethinking, the Bunker – Thorpe Model. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education. 21, (2) 177-192.
Light, R. (2003). The joy of learning: emotion and learning in games through TGfU
New Zealand Journal of Physical Education, 36(1), 93-108.
Light, R., Georgakis, S. (2005). Integrating theory and practice in teacher education:
The impact of a Game sense Unit on female pre-service primary teachers’
attitudes towards teaching physical education. New Zealand Journal of
Physical Education, 38(1), 67-80.
Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical
education. Ca. Mayfield Pub. Company
Slade, D. G. ( 2003). Stick2Hockey. Palmerston North, New Zealand. Stick2Hockey
Ltd.
Slade, D. G. (2004). Does TGfU improve student declarative knowledge? An
investigation in field hockey using the Stick2Hockey TGfU programme with
year 7 & 8 students. Unpublished presentation PENZ Conference, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Williams, N. F. (1992). The physical education hall of shame. Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance. 63 (6) 57 – 60.
Williams, N. F. (1994). The physical education hall of shame, Part II. Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. 65 (2) 17 – 20.
Williams, N. F. (1996). The physical education hall of shame, Part III. Inappropriate
Teaching Practices. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. 67
(8) 45 – 48.