Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Peter A. Hastie & Matthew D. Curtner-Smith (2006) Influence of a hybrid Sport EducationTeaching
Games for Understanding unit on one teacher and his students, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11:01, 1-27, DOI:
10.1080/17408980500466813
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408980500466813
Background: Sport Education (SE) and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) are two
curriculum models that were developed to help students participate in fair and equitable ways
and challenge their thinking beyond the replication of techniques and skills. Given that the
general aim of both models is to employ more democratic pedagogies and provide sporting
experiences which really allow students to learn how to play well, and considering both models
attempt to realize this goal in slightly different ways and have different foci, it would seem logical
that a coalition of the two might lead to some real pedagogical breakthroughs.
Purpose: To provide descriptive, detailed information about the researchers experiences and the
students reactions to a unit designed following the structure of SE (seasons, formal competition
and student roles), but with the skills and tactics taught using problem solving and guided
discovery approaches rather than a more command style.
Participants and setting: 29 sixth-grade students (11 boys and 18 girls) at a middle class primary
school in a metropolitan Australian capital meeting daily for 30 minutes over a 5-week period.
Intervention: A 22-lesson hybrid season of batting and fielding games formed the basic content of
instruction. The organizational structure of the unit was pure SE, however the main pedagogical
style employed was pure TGfU.
Research design: The design followed that of a teaching experiment having four foundational goals:
(i) to examine teaching, learning and subject matters as part of a complex system, (ii) to describe the
learning of subject matter as it occurs in the classroom, (iii) to identify from the teachers perspective
the issues, problems and challenges that arise during teaching, and (iv) to develop, refine or provide
illustrations of theory.
Data collection: Following each lesson, each student completed a critical incident reflective sheet.
Four tactics quizzes were given throughout the season. Each team designed its own batting and
fielding game using a game design form. At the completion of the season, each team
participated in a group interview that explored why they chose to incorporate certain rules or
equipment into their own games and how they would teach the tactics of their games.
During the past 20 years, there has been a concerted effort to present models of games
instruction that involve students participating in fair and equitable ways and challenge
their thinking beyond the replication of techniques and skills. A review of the literature on games experiences within physical education reveals a litany of critique.
These criticisms can be grouped under the following headings: (a) lack of content
mastery; (b) discriminatory and abusive practices; and (c) irrelevant content (see
Hastie, 2003a). Perhaps the best synopsis of games teaching was provided by Ennis
(1996), who declared that more than apologies are necessary.
To address these concerns, two curriculum models have been developed that focus
specifically on game play. In an effort to provide an authentic sport experience for children, Siedentop (1994) developed Sport Education (SE), a model aimed at producing
competent, literate and enthusiastic sportspeople. To this end, competent sportspeople
have sufficient skill and tactical knowledge to participate successfully in a game.
Literate sportspeople understand and value the rules and traditions of sport and
can distinguish between good and poor sporting practices. Finally enthusiastic sportspeople enhance, protect and preserve the sporting culture through the manner in
which they participate.
These objectives are achieved by mirroring the positive aspects of real sport within
physical education units. As Siedentop (1994) notes, this involves organizing blocks of
work as lengthy seasons and students playing on the same team for the duration of that
season, thereby developing a sense of affiliation. Moreover, considerable efforts are
made to produce a festive atmosphere. In addition, students are required to
perform a number of roles other than player and games are usually played in
Method
Research design
The design of this study followed that of a teaching experiment. According to Rovegno
et al. (2001, p. 347), when employing this design, researchers develop or work with a
teacher to develop a curriculum and study their teaching and the childrens responses
to the curriculum. Specifically, teaching experiments have four foundational goals:
(a) to examine teaching, learning and subject matter as part of a complex system; (b) to
describe the learning of subject matter as it occurs in the classroom; (c) to identify, from
the teachers perspective, the issues, problems and challenges that arise during teaching;
and (d) to develop, refine or provide illustrations of theory (Rovegno et al., 2001).
Participants and setting
The participants in this study were 29 sixth-grade students at a middle-class primary
school in a metropolitan Australian capital. The students (11 boys and 18 girls) were
either 11 or 12 years old, with all except one being Caucasian. None of the students
had experience of SE or TGfU prior to the study. Classes met daily for 30 minutes
over a five-week period. The students were not required to dress for physical
education, although the schools no hat, no play policy was followed.
The first author was the primary teacher of the hybrid SE-TGfU unit, and had
significant experience in the teacher-as-researcher role with regard to Sport
Education interventions (see, for example, Hastie, 1996, 1998, 2000). The main
advantage of this position was that in an effort to see if an intervention of this
nature might work, instruction under the leadership of an expert would seem desirable in assessing its real potential in the fullest sense.
The first author also had complete autonomy in designing the program. From a legal
stance, he was a registered teacher in the state, and had the permission and encouragement of the schools administration as well the students classroom teacher, who attended
all lessons. Permission was also gained from the students to use their data for the analysis.
The SE TGfU unit
The teacher designed a 22-lesson season on batting/fielding games (see Table 1).
Much of the content and many of the concepts included were drawn from a unit previously designed by Curtner-Smith (2004).
In congruence with the suggestions of Dyson et al. (2004), the structure of the unit
was pure SE, in that students were placed on six teams that participated in pre-season
3 5
Key content
Introduction and outline
of the unit
Beginning
batting/fielding skills
Introduction of team
roles and
responsibilities
Beginning skill practice
Five-a-side softball rules
and practice matches
6 8
Five-a-side softball
competition
Continuous cricket
Beginning skills practice
10
Continuous cricket
Beginning skills practice
11 12
Five-a-side continuous
cricket practice
matches
Five-a-side continuous
cricket competition
13 15
16
Game design I.
Planning on paper
17
Game design II
Trailing in action
18
19 21
22
Awards day
TGfU principles
SE processes
Concept of persisting
teams, roles and
competition format
Announcement of teams
development of team
identity (name, color
etc.)
Internal scrimmages
within teams
Five-a-side softball
Batting order?
Fielding positions?
Application of key principles
developed through days 1 5
Single batter games
To hit or not?
To run or not?
Backing up throws
Two batter games
Which end to bowl from?
Where to throw?
When to run?
Five-a-side continuous cricket
Batting order?
Fielding positions?
Application of key principles
developed through days 9 11
Synthesis of tactical
understanding in games
making
Synthesis of tactical
understanding in games
making
Synthesis of tactical
understanding in games
making
Application of tactical
understanding to a novel task
classroom, and systematic reflection. As a beginning point, the first author kept a reflective
log and notes about his practice throughout the season. As well as including these elements
in the present study, in line with the thinking of Holt et al. (2002), we also sought to provide
a more complete and richer description of the effects of the SETGfU unit by including
the voices of students. Therefore, we employed the following data collection techniques:
Critical incidents. The critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) was used to investigate those features of the curriculum that the students viewed as significant or important during the course of the unit. Following each lesson, the students completed a
critical incident reflective sheet. Instructions for completing the sheet were similar to
those provided by OSullivan and Tsangaridou (1992). Students were asked to write
about One thing that happened during your lesson today that you found important.
It may have been important because it made you excited, made you bored, made
you worried, or because it was something you learned that was really new. When
you have described what happened, try to explain why it was important.
While the critical incidents technique has been used in a number of studies in physical education research, particularly those examining pre-service (e.g., OBryant et al.,
2000) and practicing (e.g., Parker, 1995) teachers, as far as we were aware the
technique had not been used previously to gather data from younger children.
Tactical quizzes. Students were given a total of four tactical quizzes throughout the
unit. They completed two of these during the softball mini-season and two during the
cricket mini-season. During each quiz, students were asked to solve a tactical problem
to which there was one obviously correct answer. Within three of the quizzes the
problem involved selecting correct fielding strategies, while within the fourth it involved
selecting correct batting and pitching/bowling strategies. In each quiz, students were
presented with a written scenario and asked to solve it by drawing diagrams and/or providing a written answer. During the fielding quizzes, therefore, students were asked to
come up with the best course of action that could be taken by a fielding team.
Game design forms. Copies of all game design forms were made so that they could be
analyzed by the researchers at the completion of the unit.
Team interviews. Immediately following the completion of the season, each team was
interviewed by the first author, with the intention of discovering students motivation
for and rationale behind the particular games they had invented and how well they
really understood these games. To this end, within a focus group format
(Fontana & Frey, 1994), each team was asked the same two lead questions although
the protocol for these group interviews allowed for multiple prompts and follow-up
questions. These lead questions were (a) Tell me all about the rules of your game
and the equipment you chose to use and (b) You have just been appointed as
coaches for the other sixth-grade class and the game you are coaching is the one
that you made up. I want you to tell me what you would do in practice to get them
to play it well and win. All six interviews were audio-taped.
Data analysis
Initially, critical incident analysis involved sorting data into thoughts and perceptions.
Based on the work of Bell et al. (1985), a thought or perception was defined as a
statement that was conceptually consistent with a single topic or idea. Next, using
the analytic induction technique (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984), thoughts and perceptions were coded and placed in a series of emerging categories and subcategories.
As this process continued through four levels, some data were moved from one
category to another based on goodness of fit, category and subcategory labels were
refined or changed, and several categories were collapsed while others were subdivided. Once this process was complete, the frequency of thoughts and perceptions
within each category and subcategory were computed.
Each tactical quiz was analyzed separately. The enumerative analysis (Goetz &
LeCompte, 1984) employed involved determining the number of students who
managed to provide the correct solution to the tactical problem presented in the
scenario. In addition, exemplars representing the types of written answers provided
to each quiz were selected for illustrative purposes.
Game designed forms were analyzed inductively using typological analysis (Goetz &
LeCompte, 1984) and constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This involved
placing data (written text and diagrams) into several categories. These were the type
and amount of equipment needed to play the game, the shape and dimensions of
the playing area, method(s) of scoring, skills, strategies and innovations. This latter
category included any game component that had not been examined in the unit
prior to the game invention phase and, thus, was an example of students own thinking.
We then identified commonalities across and unique components within the six games.
All six team interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data were then analyzed by
analytic induction. During several readings, each interview text was reduced to a
series of thoughts and perceptions, this time representing teams rather than individual
students. Thoughts and perceptions were then sorted into those concerned with the
process of game invention and those explaining how another team of students
might be taught to play their game well and win. The thoughts and perceptions
within each of the two themes were then coded and categorized using the same
procedure employed during the analysis of the critical incident data.
Results
Critical incidents
Four hundred and ninety-one thoughts and perceptions about the SE-TGfU unit
were coded from the critical incident reflective sheets. The frequency of these
thoughts and perceptions are shown in Table 2 within eight major categories and
45 subcategories. The vast majority of students general comments indicated that
they enjoyed the unit hugely. Indeed, students frequently noted that lessons were
great fun, good and liked. These sentiments were expressed throughout the
season despite some concerns about the environment, particularly that it was way
Category
8/9
10
11
12
13
14
15/16
17
18
19
20
Total
lessons
6
0
0
0
6
1
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
3
0
1
0
4
4
1
0
0
5
4
0
1
0
5
7
2
0
0
9
4
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
4
1
0
0
1
2
3
1
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
2
54
4
2
3
63
6
0
0
6
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
16
1
1
18
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
1
4
0
5
5
4
1
5
0
4
4
0
2
2
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
21
30
4
0
0
0
4
2
6
1
0
9
2
0
1
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
5
6
0
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
1
0
6
42
9
3
1
55
Environmental concerns
Heat
Wind
Insects
Environmental
concerns subtotal
0
0
0
0
Opportunites to participate
Plenty
0
Lack of
1
Opportunities to
1
participate
subtotal
Team-related
Teamwork
Affiliation
Selection
Let team down
Team-related
subtotal
16
0
0
0
16
(continued)
Lesson
Lesson
Category
Affective
Being with friends
Choosing partners/
groups
Getting along with
others
Not getting along
with others
Fair play
Encourages pupils
who dont
like sport
Affective subtotal
Skill-related
Enjoy skills
Learning skills
Performing skills
Skill-related
subtotal
Game-related
Enjoyed in general
General success
Specific success
Employing tactics/
adapting to rules
General failure
8/9
10
11
12
13
14
15/16
17
18
19
20
Total
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
17
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
12
2
44
4
0
0
4
0
7
2
9
0
2
3
5
0
2
0
2
2
0
1
3
0
8
1
9
1
0
5
6
1
0
0
1
3
1
0
4
2
2
1
5
3
2
0
5
2
2
0
4
3
2
1
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
22
29
15
66
9
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
9
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
4
1
0
0
3
2
1
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
5
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
4
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
62
4
14
12
Table 2. Continued
Other
Exercise/fitness
Roles
Didnt learn
anything new
Being alert
Injury
Gender
Other subtotal
Total
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
1
6
2
0
0
5
4
0
0
5
2
0
3
22
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
2
17
0
10
0
4
0
4
0
9
0
13
0
5
0
8
0
9
0
5
0
7
0
5
0
7
0
7
1
17
1
17
0
20
0
15
2
18
4
180
2
0
0
1
0
4
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
16
8
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
3
35
44
34
30
22
24
29
29
23
25
24
26
27
28
18
25
26
26
31
491
Note: pupils wrote one critical incident for lessons 8 and 9 and lessons 15 and 16 since content in these lessons was virtually identical.
Specific failure
Winning
Losing
Enjoyed because
small-sided
Wanted to play
real game
Space
Rules
Teacher
participation
Game invention
(ve)
Game invention
(2ve)
Good game
invented
Poor game invented
Game-related
subtotal
13
comments also suggested that winning and losing were not of vital importance. Students noted that they enjoyed today because we won or made statements such as
today we flogged the Tigers, it was fun. However, they also explained, it was fun
but we lost . . . but that does not matter and even though we lost by 15 I still had fun.
Another positive outcome from the unit was the fact that there was only one plea to
play the real game. While only one comment specifically acknowledged that a game
had been enjoyable because when we played, we only played in groups of three, the
fact that students noted that they enjoyed game playing so frequently suggested that
most were very happy to participate in small-sided and modified games.
Game-related comments also suggested that the pedagogical principles borrowed
from the TGfU approach had influenced the students. The 12 comments about
tactics or adapting to rule changes perhaps provided the strongest evidence of this.
For example, following lesson 3, one student explained, the thing I learned to do
was not hit so hard. Similarly, following lesson 5, a student reported that he had
learned about loaded bases while, after lesson 7, another explained I learned to
move in front of the runner. Additionally, following lesson 11, students noted that
it is easier to run short distances than long and that they liked the game where
you had either less and more room to run and the bowler had more and less to bowl.
Other evidence suggesting that the TGfU approach had influenced students for the
better came from the comments about game invention in the latter stages of the unit.
As illustrated below, positive comments on this topic mostly involved students claiming that the process had been enjoyable:
I thought it was fun making up a game as a team. (Lesson 15/16)
It was a good experience designing a gameit made us think. (Lesson 15/16)
I like how we created a game; we tried all different types. (Lesson 15/16)
Negative comments, on the other hand, merely suggested that the process had been
difficult but had prompted considerable thought:
It was hard making up a game by ourselves. (Lesson 15/16)
It was hard to design our own game like choosing stuff for it. (Lesson 15/16)
It was a very tricky thing of all the things to do . . . but it was a good challenge. (Lesson 15/16)
In addition, many students claimed that they had invented a good game and, as illustrated below, some explained why their game was successful:
I like our game because you get heaps of points in it. (Lesson 15/16)
I like our game because we had five bases and lots of ways to score. (Lesson 15/16)
In contrast, few students experienced dissatisfaction with the game that their teams
had invented and those who did made only mildly critical comments:
I did not really like the game . . . it was too hard. (Lesson 17)
It was too hard to score. (Lesson 20)
Tactical quizzes
In the main, the students were able to provide the appropriate strategies for the
scenarios presented to them in the tactical quizzes. Sequentially, the percentages
of students providing the correct solution to each quiz were 70%, 82%, 85% and
87%. This finding suggests that students tactical ability improved during the
course of the unit. Further, as illustrated below, solutions to the early quizzes
tended to be relatively simple while solutions to later quizzes seemed to be comparatively complex:
Because if they decided to run again you could get them out. (Quiz 2)
Because its the closest base. (Quiz 2)
If the batter slogged it, why wouldnt you run, especially if it went behind the wickets? (Quiz 4)
When your bowlers throwing to the other persons end or if the wicket-keeper misses the
ball and it goes a long way. (Quiz 4)
Game design
Analysis of the games that students designed revealed three consistent features. These
were inclusion, the incorporation of risk/reward strategies for both batting and fielding teams and the avoidance of problematic skills.
Inclusion. In five of the six games designed by the students, players were permitted
to choose the method by which they would bat. In all five cases, the motivation
behind this choice was to increase the opportunity for players of differing skill
levels to have success. For example, within the Butterflies game, batters could
hit from a tee or a self-toss with a softball bat or short-handled paddle. Similarly,
the Lightning Bolts rules permitted players to use cricket bats or paddles, while
within the Wallabies game, students could choose to kick the ball from the
ground or punt it from their hands. To further increase the chance of those
players with weaker batting skills making a successful hit, the Wallabies also
chose to widen the area in which a hit was considered fair. Finally, the rules of
the Kiwis game allowed a player running to the scoring base to stop halfway at
a safety base in the event of a weak hit. The aim of this safety base, the Kiwis
explained, was to allow weaker players to make a contribution to their teams
cause.
Risk/reward strategies. Five of the six games also included rule-dictated strategic
options for both batting and fielding teams. Teams choosing the more difficult
options risked catastrophe but had the opportunity to gain more points. Teams
playing it safe and choosing the less difficult options scored fewer points if successful and suffered less dire consequences if not. In the Tigers game, for example,
batters scored points by running to bases and back to the hitting area. Some
scoring bases were nearer to the hitting area than others. Those further from the
hitting area were more difficult to get to and, thus, were worth more points.
15
Likewise, the Butterflies included a bonus base in their game that was worth two
points instead of the usual one. The trade-off was that a batter was not allowed to
stop at the bonus base and that getting to it involved running much further.
Players, therefore, had to decide whether the greater risk of getting out was
worth the extra point.
Several teams also included a range of strategic options from which fielding teams
could choose. Again, those that were more risky yielded the greatest rewards if carried
out successfully. In the Butterflies game, for example, a catch on the full was
rewarded with three points, while a catch after one bounce was worth only one
point. If a player made an unsuccessful attempt to catch on the full, the opportunity
to gain one point from catching off the bounce was gone.
The Wallabies game also included full and one-bounce catching. In their case,
however, catches made off the bounce had to be completed with one hand. Additionally, the ball used by the Wallabies was large and highly inflated. The Wallabies
explained that they had chosen to use this type of ball since, combined with their
catching rules, it encouraged fielders to move closer to the batter. The rewards for
moving closer to the batter, then, were that there was a greater possibility of
making a catch on the full and that the ball could be moved to the bases relatively
quickly. In addition, in the event that the ball was played over the fielding team, it
was still possible to turn, chase it down and catch it with one hand.
Avoidance of problematic skills. The third feature of the student-designed games was
that they avoided the use of difficult skills. For example, pitching or bowling was
always underarm because the students had such poor control when using overarm
actions. Additionally, and as alluded to in the section on inclusion, in some games
pitching was avoided altogether.
The students also tended to choose equipment and field configurations that
compensated for their lack of skill and increased their chances of doing well in
the game. For example, since most of the students had great difficulty picking
up and throwing at speed and with accuracy, as alluded to in the section on
risk/reward strategies, games which involved base-running were made easier by
using a ball that was relatively easy to throw and catch and/or by elongating
the field so that the distances between the hitting zone and the bases were relatively long.
Categories
General goals
Create a better game
Create a different game
Create a challenging game
Incorporate favorite elements
from other games
Specific purposes
Promote high scoring
Promote enjoyment
Promote sporting behaviour
Promote fitness
Promote decision-making
Fairness/opportunity to succeed
Inclusion in general
Equipment choices
Rules
Pitch dimensions
Other
Rule explanation
Lightning
Bolts
Butterflies
B
B
Wallabies
Kiwis
B
B
B
Bugs
Tigers
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
member of the Lightning Bolts, incorporating elements they had enjoyed in other
games:
We thought about the games we played and what we liked and tried to put it all together.
(Lightning Bolts member)
Members of three teams also noted that they had had a number of different specific
purposes when designing their games. Both the Lightning Bolts and the Bugs
enjoyed high scoring games and explained that they wanted to add more points
and encourage . . . [teams] to get more points within their games. The Bugs and
the Wallabies also explained that producing an enjoyable or funner game was one
of their main priorities. In addition, the Wallabies indicated that the promotion of
sporting behavior and wellness was important to them by making it officially illegal
to yell at the ref and designing a game in which the object was to get puffed
because it makes you more fit. In congruence with the TGfU approach employed
in the unit, the Bugs were also interested in promoting decision-making. As one
member of this team explained, their game
encourages you to go out to the further one [i.e., base] and get more points, so you have
to make a quick fast decision on the spot. (Bugs member)
17
Five of the six teams also expressed concerns about fairness and, as they had done on
their game design forms, noted that a key objective was to provide opportunities for all
students to succeed. To this end, different members of the Lightning Bolts recalled that
they had tried to make their game more inclusive in general and explained
how they had partially achieved this goal by allowing players to choose the equipment
they used:
We tried to make our game as fair as it can be. (Lightning Bolts member)
Why did you use different bats? (First author)
Some people were really crappy with the cricket bat, and some were really bad with the
paddles, so [we] gave them a choice. So they could actually have a chance to hit better. . . .
[This] gave everyone a chance. (Lightning Bolts member)
In addition, the Wallabies emphasized how their pitch dimensions permitted more
students to succeed:
We made it so the two front ones [i.e., bases] were wider than the back ones cause that
was a bouncy ball it was hard to kick so we wanted to have more area so they didnt foul
too much. (Wallabies member)
Finally, members of five teams explained how the rules of their games promoted
inclusion:
What about the one-bounce catch [rule]? (First author)
Some people cant catch on the full, so if they try and it bounces they still have a chance.
(Lightning Bolts member)
What about the one-hand catch [rule]? (First author)
Ben did that a lot cause he could not always catch it, but that helped. It bounces back
off our chest because its so bouncy but the one-handed catch you can still get it.
(Kiwis member)
Four of the teams were adamant that, secondly, they would teach the skills needed to
play their games. This involved showing them hitting, fielding, catching, and . . .
techniques of batting, as well as how to run, throw far and not get tagged
running. The Lightning Bolts and the Bugs then suggested that students
should play practice or small-sided games while the Wallabies and Tigers emphasized playing the full game. In addition, members from several teams noted the
Categories
Rules and dimensions
Explain/demonstrate rules
Explain/show pitch
configuration
Instructional procedures
Demonstrate/teach/practice/
perform skills
Play small-sided/modified
games
Play full game
Provide performance feedback
Provide motivational feedback
Fielding strategies/tactics
Movement of base fielders
Throwing to correct base/end
Setting/adapting the field
Throwing/running with the
ball
Backing up
Tagging runners
Moving in
Batting strategies/tactics
Hit over fielders
Hit into spaces
Hit away from good fielders
Hit to unexpected areas
Hit away from base/end
running towards
Hit long
Keep the ball down
Keep the ball in the air
Account for wind
Running decisions
Other
Encourage sportsmanship
Teamwork
Improve fitness
Lightning
Bolts
Butterflies
Wallabies
Kiwis
Bugs
Tigers
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
need to go around when [students] are practicing and tell them their mistakes but be
encouraging. This approach, of course, reflected the traditional skill-to-game and
direct teaching style approach that the students were used to rather than the TGfU
and indirect teaching style approach that had been employed during the unit.
19
Within this framework, members of all the teams also recognized the importance
of sound strategic and tactical play. As illustrated below, the most often
mentioned fielding strategy was the need to set or adapt the field for a particular
batter:
If some people kick in the same direction all the time, get there. Like Chris, he always
boots it to the right, so we moved Luke over there. (Wallabies member)
We had two out far and some in close in case they tipped it. It depended upon the kicker.
(Bugs member)
As well as adapting the field based on the strengths and weaknesses of and tactics
employed by batters, some teams stressed the importance of getting certain players
in positions that matched their skills:
Get all the good catchers out the back and all the good chuckers up the front so they
could get to the base and hit the wickets. (Wallabies member)
Youd put Scott out there because he is a good catcher. (Lightning Bolts member)
As illustrated by the quotations below, the next most often mentioned fielding strategy/tactic was throwing to the correct base or end:
How did you decide where to throw? (First author)
You throw to the closest base or if they are nearly going home you throw to the wickets.
(Kiwis member)
What are some of the things that you did to win all your games? (First author)
. . . Throw to the person nearest the closest base. (Butterflies member)
Give me a specific example of that. (First author)
It depends upon where the runner is . . . If he is on second you would throw it to
third or the wickets. It depends upon how close you are. If he is just at first base,
youd go to second, but if he was not that close, youd go to that base. (Butterflies
member)
As well as getting the ball to the correct base or end, four of the teams also explained
that successful fielders were able to make good decisions about whether to throw or
run with the ball to a base or end:
If its a long way awaythrow to another person rather than running with it, because the
ball normally goes faster throwing than a person thats actually running. (Lightning Bolts
member)
Other fielding strategies/tactics mentioned less often during the interviews included
making sure that base fielders realized that they didnt have to stay on base all the
time, covering other fielders, chasing the runner to tag them and getting everyone
to run towards the hitting area.
The batting strategy most often suggested by the students was to hit it where no
people are. Other suggestions for batters included hit it as hard as you can so it
goes over the fielders head, hit . . . away from good fielders, kick it really far,
kick it low to the ground so that its hard to catch, keep the ball in the air because
when it bounces and comes way up from the ground . . . its harder to field and
when the winds blowing, kick it straight, because it could blow foul. In addition,
On your first go you could pretend you are a really bad kicker and they would come in
next time and so you could kick it over their heads. (Bugs member)
Would a small hit ever be useful? (First author)
If they thought you were a good hitter and they had all moved out. (Kiwis member)
In addition to suggesting specific hitting strategies and tactics, four of the teams also
recognized the importance of making good running decisions so that players could
get to base without getting out. The Lightning Bolts, for example, noted that deciding whether or not to attempt to run to the next base depends on the accuracy and
throwing of the fielder. Similarly, the Tigers followed the general tactical rule that
if you hit small, run close or if you hit far, run far.
Finally, it is worth highlighting that the members of the Wallabies believed that part
of playing their game well involved showing good sportsmanship. Moreover,
members of the Butterflies noted that superior teamwork had contributed significantly to their success in competition, while the Bugs stressed that, to be successful,
teams should get . . . fit, because there is a lot of running.
Discussion
In congruence with Rovegno et als. (2001) definition of a teaching experiment, this study
examined teaching, learning and subject matter as part of a complex system. The
complex system, in this case, was created by an attempt to combine SE and
TGfU and the subject matter was batting/fielding games. The discussion that follows
is based on Rovegno et als. (2001) final three foundational goals for teaching
experiments.
Learning the subject matter
The results of the study suggested that the students made significant gains during the
SE TGfU unit. First, they became more competent. They responded well to the
myriad of problems they were asked to solve during small-sided game play, quizzes
and game invention sessions and, by the units conclusion, were able to understand,
appreciate and execute a number of rudimentary batting, bowling/pitching and fielding tactics and strategies, and some which were fairly sophisticated. These findings,
then, strongly contradict Asquiths (1989) claim that primary schoolchildren were
incapable of appreciating or learning tactical concepts. Moreover, there was some
evidence to suggest that students also improved their performance of technical skills.
Only one previous study has examined skill and tactical development during SE.
Within an ultimate Frisbee unit in which more direct teaching styles were employed,
Hastie (1998) also found that students technical skills improved as they sought to
master the tactical and strategic dimensions of game play. More research focusing
21
specifically on the processes by which students achieve these gains would obviously
be helpful.
Second, the students demonstrated improved literacy. They understood the overarching principles, rules and structures of batting/fielding games, appreciated their
importance, and were able to transfer them from one game to another. Particularly
impressive in this respect was their ability to include risk/reward strategies
and avoid problematic skills in the games that they invented. Moreover, they appreciated and had some understanding of the roles they took on other than player and
appeared to have some idea of the basic pedagogical practices needed to teach games.
Third, the students became increasingly enthusiastic. They enjoyed the unit, were
excited and looked forward to each class. They emphasized and demonstrated teamwork, cooperation and affiliation, and reveled in the opportunity to practice and play
with their friends. Importantly, they also made valiant attempts to include all
members of the class, did not place an undue emphasis on winning and, for the
most part, recognized the importance of playing fairly and in a sporting manner.
Most tellingly, they attempted to produce, what for them, were new forms of
batting/fielding games, rather than reworking games with which they were already
familiar.
Issues, problems and challenges
Four major issues, problems and challenges were identified during the course of the
unit. In congruence with the findings of Rink (1996), the first of these was that despite
their aforementioned gains in technical competency, lack of skill, particularly in pitching/bowling, served to limit students ability to demonstrate tactical understanding
which they undoubtedly had. Heeding Kirk and MacPhails (2002) reminder that tactical and technical dimensions of game play should be viewed as interdependent
rather than oppositional, in retrospect we believe that more attention to this key
enabling skill would have been beneficial.
The second issue was the limited amount of time available for instruction. Although
this unit was lengthy when compared to traditional multi-activity units, it was still difficult to attend to all the instructional and managerial tasks associated with both SE
and TGfU. Based on previous research (Hastie, 2000), we realized how important
establishing a rigorous managerial task system was if the students were to have a successful season. In the early lessons, therefore, the first author put most of his energy
into teaching beginning class protocols, team roles and responsibilities, and how to
conduct independent team practices. Within a 30-minute lesson, of course, this
meant that TGfU-style instruction tended to get squeezed out.
Once the unit was well underway, the first author continued to find the 30-minute
lesson restrictive. In short, it put great pressure on the instructional task system. Using
Mosston and Ashworths (2001) productive teaching styles was time-consuming.
Students needed time to answer questions, respond to rule changes, adapt to equipment and playing area modifications and design games. In addition, the teacher
needed time to move from team to team. Longer lessons or units and more experience
23
1998; Kirk & Almond, 1999; Kirk & Kinchin, 2003) have focused on one component
of constructivism known as situated learning theory. Based on Lave and Wengers
(1991) notion of legitimate peripheral participation in communities of practice,
they have argued that, within physical education, students should take part in
authentic activities which are similar to those they will encounter outside of school.
Moreover, they have highlighted the influence of the cultural and social context on
what and how students learn. Based on the results of our teaching experiment, we
believe that the hybrid SE TGfU unit was successful because it promoted active,
social and creative learning and allowed students to participate in relevant and authentic sport forms which they could see were related to those occurring in the wider
community.
Moreover, we believe that the combination of SE and TGfU made our unit stronger. While we agree with Dyson et al. (2004) that both models encourage a constructivist approach, we see some relative strengths and weaknesses when the pure forms of
the two models are employed by themselves. As noted in the introduction, for us, SE is
an outward-focused model and, therefore, much more likely to promote social and
situated learning than the inward-focused TGfU. Conversely, TGfU is a much stronger model in terms of promoting the use of indirect teaching styles and, hence, active
and creative learning.
Rink (2001) argued that it was important to find out what factors motivated
children in physical education classes. Based on our studys results, we agree with a
number of other researchers (e.g., Werner et al., 1996; Allison et al., 2000;
Strean & Holt, 2000; Holt et al., 2002) that participating in game play is one of
these factors. Locating game play within an SE framework, however, made it that
much more legitimate. While other curricular models may not excite postmodern
children and youth (Tinning & Fitzclarence, 1992), in line with Alexander, Taggart
and Thorpe (1996), we believe that the hybrid SE-TGfU unit was culturally relevant.
Combining SE and TGfU meant that modifications had to be made to both models
so that they were compatible with each other. First, the subject matter of the unit was
a category of games (batting/fielding games) rather than a single game, as is usually
the case in SE units. In line with other advocates of TGfU (see Bunker & Thorpe,
1982; Holt et al., 2002; Dyson et al., 2004), this was because we wanted to focus
on the transfer of tactical and strategic principles from one game to another.
A second, and in our view highly successful, adaptation was to ask students to
design and vote for the game that was played in the final competitive phase of the
season. As observed previously by others (Almond, 1983; Howarth, 1989; Rovegno
& Bandhauer, 1994; Curtner-Smith, 1996), this process allowed students to create
games that were meaningful to them while promoting their active engagement with
and exploration of concepts of game play. In future, we believe that the Sports
Board, elected from the teams in a class, could be given added responsibility in
terms of settling on the final set of rules, conditions and regulations that govern
this culminating competition.
Combining the two models also appeared to change the way in which the first
author conceptualized and employed the TGfU approach. Others have suggested
25
to drive and give momentum to the proceedings and, therefore, teaching was more
labor-intensive.
Finally, both Holt et al. (2002) and Dyson et al. (2004) pointed out that, to date,
TGfU and TGfU research has focused almost exclusively on psychomotor and cognitive learning. Both sets of authors called for the model to be extended and noted
that it has the potential to be more holistic and contribute to the realization of affective goals as well. We agree and believe that combining TGfU with SE forces a natural
shift toward considering cultural and social outcomes. As illustrated by CurtnerSmith (2004), we also see the potential for expanding the concept of understanding
within a hybrid SE-TGfU unit so that students critically examine components of
sport which are concerned with literacy and enthusiasm.
References
Alexander, K. & Luckman, J. (2001) Australian teachers perceptions and uses of the sport
education curriculum model, European Physical Education Review, 7(3), 243 267.
Alexander, K., Taggart, A. & Thorpe, S. (1996) A spring in their steps? Possibilities for professional
renewal through sport education in Australian schools, Sport, Education and Society, 1, 23 46.
Allison, P. C., Pissanos, B. W. & Turner, A. P. (2000) Preservice physical educators epistemologies
of skillfulness, Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 19, 141 161.
Almond, L. (1983) Games making, Bulletin of Physical Education, 19(1), 32 35.
Almond, L. (1997) Physical education in the schools (London, Logan Page).
Asquith, A. (1989) Teaching games for understanding, in: A. Williams (Ed.) Issues in physical
education for primary years (Philadelphia, PA, Falmer Press).
Bell, R., Barrett, K. R. & Allison, P. C. (1985) What preservice physical education teachers see in an
unguided, early field experience, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 81 90.
Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools, Bulletin of
Physical Education, 18(1), 5 8.
Butler, J. (1996) Teacher responses to Teaching Games for Understanding, Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(9), 17 20.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. (1996) Teaching for understanding: using games invention with elementary
children, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 67(3), 33 37.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2004) A hybrid sport education-games for understanding striking/fielding
unit for upper elementary pupils, Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 15(5), 7 16.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. & Sofo, S. (2004) Preservice teachers conceptions of teaching within sport
education and multi-activity units, Sport, Education and Society, 9, 347 377.
Dyson, B., Griffin, L. & Hastie, P. (2004) Theoretical and pedagogical considerations for implementing sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning instructional models,
Quest, 56, 225 239.
Ennis, C. D. (1996) Students experiences in sport-based physical education: (more than) apologies
are necessary, Quest, 48, 453 456.
Ennis, C. D. (1999) Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls, Sport, Education
and Society, 4, 31 49.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954) The critical incident technique, Psychological Bulletin, 4, 327 358.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994) Interviewing: the art of science, in: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds) Handbook of qualitative research (London, Sage), 361 376.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research
(Chicago, IL, Aldine).
Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. (1984) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (San
Diego, CA, Academic Press).
27