Teaching teachers to play and teach games

This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]On: 23 August 2013, At: 16:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Physical Education and Sport PedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20

Teaching teachers to play and teachgamesSteven Wright Associate Professor a , Michael McNeill b , Joan Fry b

& John Wang ba University of New Hampshire, USAb Nanyang Technological University, SingaporePublished online: 23 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Steven Wright Associate Professor , Michael McNeill , Joan Fry & John Wang(2005) Teaching teachers to play and teach games, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10:1,61-82, DOI: 10.1080/1740898042000334917

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1740898042000334917

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/1740898042000334917

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1740898042000334917

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teaching teachers to play and

teach games

Steven Wrighta, Michael McNeillb, Joan Fryb and John Wangb

aUniversity of New Hampshire, USA; bNanyang Technological University, Singapore

This study was designed to determine the extent to which a technical and a tactical approach to

teaching a basketball unit to physical education teacher education (PETE) students would each

affect their games playing abilities, perceived ability to teach, and approach preference for

teaching the game. Pre- and post-unit data were collected through videotape of half-court games

play, questionnaire and an eight-lesson planning assignment, submitted by the students at unit-

end. Within-group adjusted multiple t tests revealed that the tactical group participants improved

significantly in their overall games playing abilities (skill execution, decision-making and

support). They also significantly improved on self-rated questionnaire items pertaining to their

perceived abilities to teach tactics and strategies as well as to use their basketball skills in a games

situation. The technical group participants did not improve significantly in their overall games

playing abilities but did improve their overall perceived abilities to apply their basketball skills in

games settings. Whereas 80% of the technical group (n ¼ 15) chose the tactical approach, the

tactical group (n ¼ 15) unanimously applied a tactical approach in their lesson design.

Keywords: Teaching; Games; Physical education teacher education

In recent years there has been some debate among physical education academics

(McMorris, 1998) about the best way to teach games to pupils from their late

primary years through secondary schooling. The dominant, traditional pedagogical

approach in physical education (PE) has been referred to as technical (or behaviour-

istic) games teaching (TGT) and is characterized, perhaps unfairly, by its prescription

of isolated drills and de-contextualized practices (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986).

Essentially, the questioning of games teaching has transpired because physical edu-

cationalists have become knowledgeable about, and interested in, alternative tactical

or constructivist approaches that have mainly originated from Bunker and Thorpe’s

teaching games for understanding, the ‘TGfU’ (1982). Although first conceptualized

in the late 1960s at Loughborough University, the TGfU was initially slow to catch on

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

Vol. 10, No. 1, February 2005, pp. 61–82

Corresponding author: Steven Wright, Associate Professor, Physical Education Pedagogy, Univer-

sity of New Hampshire, 124 Main St., Durham, NH 03824, USA. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1740-8989 (print); ISSN 1742-5786 (online)=05=10061–22# 2005 The Physical Education Association of the United KingdomDOI: 10.1080=1740898042000334917

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

elsewhere (Holt et al., 2002). Recent writings in journals such as the European Journal

of Physical Education (McMorris, 1998; Mitchell & Oslin, 1999; Turner et al., 2001),

Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (Berkowitz, 1996; Butler, 1996;

Oslin, 1996; Turner, 1996; Hopper, 2002; Wilson, 2002) and in the Journal of Teach-

ing in Physical Education (French, Werner, Rink et al., 1996; French, Werner, Taylor

et al., 1996; Griffin & Placek, 2001; Holt et al., 2002; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002), as well

as two international conferences devoted to TGfU-related approaches (2001 in New

Hampshire, USA and 2003 in Melbourne, Australia), suggest that interest in its

varied applications is becoming more prevalent among PETE faculty. A games

concept approach, the ‘GCA’ (Ministry of Education, 1999), is the particular

TGfU-derived application that is the focus of this study. However, there remains

some resistance among field practitioners (McNeill et al., 2004).

The rationale behind the TGfU has been espoused in great detail (Bunker &

Thorpe, 1982, particularly; Butler, 1996; Oslin, 1996; Turner, 1996; Werner et al.,

1996; McMorris, 1998; Almond, 2001; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Griffin & Sheehy,

2004). Therefore it requires no further expansion, other than our reminding

readers that the TGfU focuses on teaching games through a conceptual approach,

through concepts, tactics and strategies rather than through a basis of skill, a

technical games teaching approach, or TGT. As with the TGfU, the GCA’s ‘under-

standing’ focus is developed through small-sided, situational games, whereby pupils

will typically be given opportunities to play a game at lesson-beginning as well as at

lesson-end (Griffin et al., 1997). Skills are not neglected, but should, as necessary,

come into focus in response to the lesson’s opening situational game. Then, a

teacher-led question and answer period focusing on the pupils’ performance follows

this game (Griffin et al., 1997). Ideally, this process should encourage pupils to think

not only about what they did and why, but also about how they might improve

their play through better decision-making. When a skills practice session, based on

how the pupils performed in the initial game follows, pupils are led to appreciate

the relevance of such practice. It is important that this practice phase is developmental

and occurs in a contextualized games form (Almond, 2001; Kirk, 2001; Launder,

2001). Pupils are then given opportunities to apply what they have learned in a

concluding game, similarly structured, or conditioned, as the lesson’s opening.

Although TGT and TGfU approaches involve game play and skill development,

their lesson emphases differ. There have been a number of studies that have compared

technical with tactical teaching outcomes. Several have revealed that there were no

differences between tactical and technical groups when skills execution was examined

within games settings (Turner & Martinek, 1992; Griffin et al., 1995; Mitchell et al.,

1995; Turner, 1996). However, having found that tactical participants executed skills

better within a games setting than did technical counterparts, Turner and Martinek

(1999) suggested that inconsistency in results could be due to variation of interven-

tion duration across such studies.

Early investigations of decision-making in games teaching have had mixed findings.

Although some indicated that there were no statistical differences between tactical

and technical groups concerning their ability to make decisions in a game situation

62 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

(Turner & Martinek, 1992; Mitchell et al., 1995), others found tactical groups to be

superior in this aspect of play (Turner, 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1999).

A study of teaching tennis to undergraduate adult beginners, and the only study

that we found related to undergraduates’ exposure to the tactical approach, found

that those taught through a technical approach improved both technically and tacti-

cally (McPherson & French, 1991). A second group taught from a tactical perspective

improved tactically but not technically until the second half of the unit when direct

skill instruction commenced, but that improvement was not significant.

While much has been written comparing technical and tactical approaches to

teaching games, the focus of this study will be to examine each approach indepen-

dently and from the perspective of a population that has been lacking in the literature

up till now—that of PETE students.

Theoretical perspective

The underpinning theoretical perspective of this study is one of situated learning, par-

ticularly as related to adults. This perspective implies that, rather than acquired in a

de-contextualized environment, knowledge and skills are best learned in classrooms in

ways that make sense in workplace environments (Stein, 1998). In other words, skills

and knowledge are best taught and learned in social contexts that resemble real-life

(Lankard, 1995). Moreover, Brown and co-workers (1989) suggested that adult edu-

cators should reduce their roles as content transmitters and become learning facilita-

tors, promoting the notion of cognitive apprenticeships. Within this process, teachers

make learning explicitly relevant through their setting problems that require adult

learners to discuss, reflect and evaluate among, and for, themselves. Authors of

TGfU-related studies have also mentioned the relevance of the situated learning per-

spective (Langley & Knight, 1996; Kirk et al., 2000; Rovegno et al., 2001), albeit with

younger participants than those in our study. Kirk and MacPhail (2002) have argued

that the TGfU model should be considered and interpreted more specifically from a

situated learning perspective. Indeed, see McNeill et al. (2004) for how this notion is

taken up in a study of student teachers’ using a tactical approach on practicum. Other

pertinent issues related to such a revision will be addressed later in this paper. Import-

ant from our view is the contention that PETE students’ prior knowledge and experi-

ences need to be carefully considered in order to help them deconstruct deeply held

beliefs about games teaching practices (Kirk, 1986). Dewar (1989) found PETE stu-

dents to be products of technical PE and sports backgrounds as was the context of our

study (McNeill et al., 2004). She also suggested that undergraduates were satisfied

with those experiences and would choose a custodial approach to teaching and so

maintain the PE status quo of a teacher-driven, technical paradigm. Our argument

is that, if PETE students experience only TGT approaches in their undergraduate

classes and do not have opportunities to appreciate games teaching from a tactical,

understanding perspective, they will likely reproduce the failures of the traditional

approach to which Bunker and Thorpe (1986) alluded. Ennis (1996) also expressed

Teaching teachers to play and teach games 63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

concern that pupils were being turned off sports as a consequence of inconsiderate

teachers who were elitist and trapped in a perennialist cycle.

Purpose

Although much has been written about TGfU in relationship to school pupils’ learning

to play, little has been recorded about its use among PETE students. Our study was

designed to investigate teaching approach influences on selected adult player and

teachers’ behaviours, knowledge and values. Its purpose was therefore to determine

the extent to which two different games teaching approaches, specifically (a) tactical

and (b) technical, affected the game playing ability, perceived ability to teach, preferred

teaching approach and lesson design among 30 final year PETE students.

Methods

Although other investigators have compared the efficacy of technical versus tactical

approaches to teaching games (McPherson & French, 1991; Berkowitz, 1996;

Turner, 1996), our intent was to examine each one’s independent worth. We agree

with Rink (2001) and Holt et al. (2002) that research should move beyond the

debate about which is better and focus on that which occurs in the teaching/learning

processes of these approaches. Essentially, this was a quasi-experimental within-group

study. Our major intention of separately using the approaches was to understand how

each facilitated PETE students’ abilities to play the game (basketball) from execution,

decision-making and support perspectives. Rather than test competence in isolated

skills, we chose to situate practical assessment in games performance. Making

decisions involved the selection of appropriate choices regarding possession of the

ball during a game, and support referred to off-the-ball movements that positioned

a player to receive the ball (Oslin et al., 1998). Secondly, participants’ perceived abil-

ities to perform and teach skills, tactics and strategies, as well as a stated preference for

either a technical or tactical approach for teaching basketball, were determined

through questionnaires. Thirdly, to ascertain a preference for a tactical or technical

approach in students’ planning pertaining to teaching basketball, the study drew on

a course assessment task. Inductive analysis of the assignment led us to consider

issues related to the students’ socialization with regard to TGfU-like approaches.

Ethical approval was gained from the department’s research review committee. The

methods explanation is divided into four parts. Initially, we have described the partici-

pants. Next detailed is the intervention, a basketball unit in two forms: (a) technical

games teaching approach (TGT) and (b) tactical games teaching approach (the

GCA). Then we outline data collection techniques and analysis procedures related

to the phenomena of interest—games playing ability and understanding, perceived

teaching competence, and preferences for teaching and planning.

The participants

The teacher. Steve, lead author, could well be described as an expert teacher/coach. He

has had vast playing and coaching experience. Prior to moving into PETE 12 years

64 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

earlier as a PE and coach education specialist, he had taught secondary PE and

coached basketball for 11 years. In recent years, he had frequently taught a similar

basketball unit to students in a parallel PETE programme. His critical teaching-

friend was a specialist in GCA teaching, Mike, the second author, had a complemen-

tary playing, teaching and coaching background, albeit not in basketball. Potential

bias came through the ‘triple threat’ of Steve’s being researcher/teacher/student-asses-

sor. In our outlining the study the students were told that research participation was

voluntary and consent could be withdrawn at anytime without penalty.

The students. This investigation drew on two discrete mixed-gender groups of final

year, PETE students, totalling 19 men and 11 women who were enrolled in the

basketball unit. One group comprised 10 men and 5 women, the other 9 men and

6 women. One group experienced learning basketball through a TGT approach,

the other through the GCA. The participants were unknown to Steve, who mainly

taught in another PETE programme. Equally, class assignment to teaching approach

was random because university administrators had designated entry students to

specific cohorts, each with their respective class schedule. Thereby, they were

required to stay in the particular group within their programme, as in this case second-

ary school PETE. All participants volunteered written informed consent. These

participants’ PE schooling experiences had typically been through direct teaching

approaches, mainly drill-like instruction (McNeill et al., 2004). In terms of their uni-

versity course work, most practically focused modules, designed to develop content

knowledge, were also taught through a TGT approach. The participants had taken

three previous modules that dealt with team games, including soccer, volleyball

taught by our fourth author, and field hockey. Analysis of course materials and our

discussions with teaching staff confirmed that all had had a technical bias. These

PETE students had also been formally exposed to teaching games through a func-

tional, prescriptive pedagogy in their first of two teaching methods modules

because the department’s course review team had perceived it to present a strong

foundation for management and organization procedures on which a conceptual

approach could later build. With Mosston (1966)/Mosston and Ashworth’s (2002)

notion of teacher-centred styles and pre-discovery threshold as the structural organi-

zer and dominant pedagogical theory, that academic module had emphasized direct

teaching strategies and included a school-based teaching experience. However, all

students had also experienced a tactical/conceptual approach in two units prior to

the current investigation. One had specifically dealt with the principles of games

from the TGfU perspective of invasion, net/wall, and fielding/run scoring categories

(Almond, 1986). The other was their second pedagogical module that had focused

on indirect teaching modes, particularly the GCA as specified in the national

school PE syllabus (Ministry of Education, 1999; Tan & Tan, 2000). Using teaching

styles on the ‘student-centred’ side of the discovery threshold (Mosston & Ashworth,

2002), it had emphasized teaching games through a conceptual approach that

included concepts, tactics, strategies and sporting behaviours. It also included a

reflective, micro-teaching component in schools. Therefore, all of these participants


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

had been engaged theoretically and practically by both TGT and GCA approaches.

The basketball modules, the activity context for the current investigation, differed

from the norm of TGT in that one of the two cohorts was randomly ‘assigned’ to

the TGfU-related mode.

The basketball unit(s)

The unit ran twice weekly for nine weeks. Its objectives for both groups were to

develop (a) knowledge of basketball and perceived confidence in teaching skills,

tactics and strategies related to the game, (b) abilities to play basketball, and (c)

planning skills for teaching basketball in schools.

Whether to teach only tactics to one group and only techniques to the other or

address techniques and tactics to both was a design issue (French, Werner, Rink

et al., 1996). We decided that the PETE participants would ultimately be responsible

for teaching basketball techniques as well as its tactics. Therefore, both games dimen-

sions were included for each cohort, but strict adherence to either a behaviourist or a

constructivist teaching perspective (Macdonald, 2004) retained a clear distinction

between the two cohorts’ experiences.

Fidelity to teaching guidelines, in this case the teaching approach, was achieved

through researcher collaboration. Steve and Mike met before the study began to

determine appropriate unit plans for both approaches. Subsequently, daily lesson

plans were constructed and reviewed and Steve accordingly taught the classes. As a

safeguard, the tactical and technical lessons were independently observed on six

occasions. The authors conferred after these classes were taught and were satisfied

that the tactical and technical approaches were faithfully delivered. There are a

number of derivatives of the TGfU; we chose Griffin et al.’s (1997) three-phase

lesson structure sequence in an attempt to provide some consistency with the employ-

ment context. Their tactical games teaching text was in wide use in the school district

and members of Griffin’s team had provided in-service to local teachers soon after the

PE syllabus launch. Needless to say, we were also familiar with their perspective.

Their model had also been used in TGfU-related modules previously described.

A unit-planning task—lesson descriptions and their rationale—was one aspect of

the module assessment that accounted for 25% of their final grade. The eight

lessons were to be of 45-minute duration, and targeted at Grade 8 level pupils. The

third author, who was the lecturer for both prior pedagogy modules, provided input

into this assessment task. During the course of the semester, Steve and the research

assistant (RA) assured both cohorts that their chosen teaching approach was imma-

terial to their grade.

The TGT unit initially addressed offensive skills through Steve’s teaching drills

related to dribbling, passing and shooting, as well as on- and off-the-ball defensive

skills and blocking out when rebounding, loosely described as ‘practice’, ‘reciprocal’

and ‘inclusion’ styles (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002). After 10 sessions, the content

progressed to small-sided 2 versus 2 and half-court games when tactics, such as the

‘pick and roll’ and the ‘give and go’, were introduced from a ‘how-to-do’ perspective.

66 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Content further progressed to 3 versus 3, then 4 versus 4, before he introduced offen-

sive and defensive strategies for 5 versus 5 through demonstration and explanation.

Interspersed around the game activities were skills development revisions and exten-

sions that were content-centred and again presented through direct instruction. His

questioning of students was also focused on ‘how’ to do particular skills. For

example, when Steve observed a ‘pick and roll’ he would stop and ask a student

who had set the pick, how to roll after the person with the ball had dribbled past.

He would then have them execute the pick and roll again until effectively done.

Alternatively, the GCA unit engaged participants in concepts such as ‘maintaining

possession of the ball’, ‘attacking the goal’ and ‘defending space’ (Griffin et al., 1997).

Skills were taught from a ‘why’ perspective as they became relevant to the performance

of students in their game play; they were developed in contextualized game scenarios

that promoted problem solving and decision-making capabilities. Similarly, small-

sided games also progressed to full-team play. A major focus for the GCA cohort

was questioning that was embedded in games play; for example, Steve stopped a

group in ‘freeze frame’ in order to probe players’ decisions regarding their on- and

off-the-ball movements. He then asked them to compare the relative worth of tactical

solutions in their following games play. ‘When player A sets a pick for player B, who has

the ball, where should player C move to, and why?’ Once answers were given and

discussed, Steve followed up with, ‘Try it out in your play and be ready to talk about

how well each one worked.’ Questioning also occurred after the opening game and

following the closing game in every lesson. See Table 1 for specific content taught in

each session. Week-by-week the relative GCA and TGT lessons varied, but they even-

tually came together in session 17 when both groups were playing full-court, 5 versus 5

games that were respectively designed for problem-raising and feedback-providing

sessions. Steve set aside time for teams to discuss their performance on specific tasks

and encouraged players to give each other feedback.

Data collection techniques

Several methods were used to collect pre- and post-unit data. First, in order to deter-

mine their game playing abilities, the participants were videotaped for 15 minutes

while playing small-sided games of half-court basketball. The same combinations of

players and contestant teams were engaged for unit-beginning and unit-end games.

Front- and back-numbered bibs (pinnies) were worn to aid player identification

during videotape analyses. All participants (except one) were present for every data

collection session and attended at least 88% of the 18 basketball lessons.

Second, we designed a questionnaire probing participants’ confidence levels in

demonstrating, explaining and teaching skills, strategies and tactics to pupils. The

questions used 5-point Likert scales with 1 ¼ not confident at all, to 5 ¼ very

confident. A final item called for a preferred approach to teaching basketball in an

upcoming teaching practicum. Responses indicating a technical preference were

coded 1, and tactical preferences were coded 2; therefore 1.5 represented the point

for discrimination. A panel of four experts, all PETE pedagogy researchers, reviewed


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Table 1. Basketball content for tactically-taught and technically-taught lessons

Lesson

no

Tactical Group—tactical game, followed by

skills (in parenthesis) then another tactical game

Technical Group—skills only

or followed by tactical game

1 Entry level assessment 4v4 half court game

[video] Conceptual Focus (Focus)—What

skills are necessary for maintaining

possession?

2v2, passing, no dribbling (triple threat

position, pivot, ball fake)

Entry level assessment 4v4 half

court game [video]

Ball handling exercises,

dribbling, shielding

2 Focus—What is the role of predictability in

passing?

Cross-over, pivot and behind-

the-back dribble

Maintaining possession in 2v2, passing, no

dribbling (chest, bounce, shoulder pass) 2v2

maintain possession

3 Focus—Think of what is necessary to receive a

pass comfortably!

Defensive position and shuffle

on ball, 1v1

Maintaining possession, 2v2, passing, no

dribbling (support off the ball) 3v1, maintain

possession

4 Focus—Look for ways to shield the ball during

possession!

Shooting form, set shot, jump

stop

Maintaining possession, 2v2, dribble or pass

(protecting the ball when dribbling) 2v2,

maintain possession

5 Focus—Think of what it takes to win the ball! Power lay-up, lay-up

Defence, covering/pressuring the ball, 2v2,

dribble or pass to maintain possession

(defence on ball) 2v2 win the ball

6 Focus—How do you support the ball-hustler?

Defence, covering off the ball, 2v2, dribble or

pass to maintain possession (defence off the

ball) 2v2 win the ball

Jump stop into jump shot,

catch and shoot

7 Focus—How can you improve your availability

to receive?

Station work pertaining to

skills previously taught

Creating space, 2v2, passing only (sharp cuts off

the ball) 2v2 maintain possession, mobility

8 Focus—Think of ways to penetrate the defence!

Attacking the basket, 2v2, passing, dribbling

(dribble penetration) 2v2 penetration

Chest, bounce, skip, and

baseball passes

9 Focus—When and where can you shoot

confidently from?

Passing on the run, finish with

lay-up, weave

Attacking the basket, 2v2, passing, dribbling,

shooting (shooting form) 2v2 scoring

10 Focus—What can you do to threaten a defence?


shooting (power lay-up, lay-up) 2v2, scoring

from in close

2v1 passing drill, triple threat,

use of pivot, ball fake, then

shooting drill

(continued)

68 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

the drafted questionnaire and judged it apt in targeting the intended participants’

perspectives on the dimensions of interest. Given that this process determined face

validity, a research assistant (RA) piloted it among 15 PETE students who were

not part of the study. Thus we substantiated that the questions were clearly and

unambiguously written. The RA administered the inventory at unit-beginning and

at unit-end. One absent participant failed to complete the pre-course questionnaire

and therefore was not part of the pertaining data analysis.

Table 1 Continued

Lesson

no

Tactical Group—tactical game, followed by

skills (in parenthesis) then another tactical game

Technical Group—skills only

or followed by tactical game

11 Focus—What kind of tactic will assist in

breaking down a defence?


shooting (give and go, jump shot) 2v2 scoring

3v1 passing drill, emphasis on

support, (2v2 possession)

12 Focus—Besides the ‘give-and-go’, what other

tactics might support team play?

Station work pertaining to

skills previously taught

Creating space and attacking the basket, 2v2,

passing, dribbling, shooting (pick and roll)

2v2 scoring off the pick

13 Focus—How can we prevent scoring?

Defending space, 2v2, passing, dribbling,

shooting (defending against pick and roll) 2v2

preventing scoring

(2v2, creating space and

attacking the basket with

pick and roll)

14 Focus—Do we know enough tactics to break

down a defence time after time?

(2v2, pick and roll, and

defence against it)


passing, dribbling, shooting (pass and pick

away from ball) 3v3 scoring off the pick

15 Focus—What alternatives do extra players

offer?

Maintaining possession, 4v4, passing,

cutting, picking (post/guard play off ball) 4v4

possession

Defensive and offensive

rebounding (3v3 pass and

pick away)

16 Focus—How well can we cover our opponents?

Creating space and attacking the basket, 5v5

man-to-man offence and defence, full court

(4v4 passing, pick away and

shooting, no dribbling)

17 Focus—Is the alternative to man-to man

effective?

(5v5 full court, man defence

and offence)


2-1-2 zone offence and defence, full court

18 Focus—How can we create advantageous

numbers by attacking quickly after a steal?

Using space in attack, 5v5, transition (fast

break 2v1 and 3v2) 4v4 half court game

[video]

(5v5 full court, zone defence

and offence), [4v4 half court

game video]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Third, the planning assignment was submitted on the last day of instruction. From

students’ responses we determined their preferences for and ability to plan a basket-

ball unit through either a TGT or TGfU approach.

Data analysis

Pre- and post unit videotaped games play were analysed using the Game Performance

Assessment Instrument (GPAI; Oslin et al., 1998) in order to determine the partici-

pants’ abilities to perform three tasks within a games framework, namely, proficiently

execute skills, make apt decisions, and offer off-the-ball support to team mates. A

cluster of eight randomly selected players from each cohort (Tn ¼ 16) had their

games play performance analyzed. Each game lasted 15 minutes. The pre- and post

unit GPAI results were also compared using t tests. The Bonferroni error adjustment

was used, and the resulting significance level was set at p ¼ .0125.

Participants were rated according to Oslin et al.’s (1998) criteria. Apt decisions

pertained to whether a player appropriately or inappropriately either passed to an

open team mate or attempted a shot at the basket. Support categories were similar

and pertained to whether the focus player made an effort to move into an open pos-

ition that created a passing lane for the team mate with the ball. The skill execution

component included passing, receiving and shooting. A pass was considered efficient

if the ball reached its target. An efficient reception was coded if the player controlled

the pass. Oslin et al. (1998) explicated their GPAI assessment criteria in the context of

soccer, but the skills execution criteria for shooting are slightly different in basketball.

Therefore, Richard and Griffin’s (2001) definitions were used for this component. A

shot was considered efficient if either the basket was made or the ball hit the rim.

Because dribbling gives basketball its unique character and is central to some strat-

egies such as the ‘triple threat position’, we added a dribbling component that was

considered efficient if the player gained an advantage over the guarding opponent.

The GPAI also provides an overall game performance score by averaging the sum

of the Decisions Made Index (DMI), the Skill Execution Index (SEI) and the

Support Index (SI) (Oslin et al., 1998). The two lead authors and the RA were

familiar with the GPAI and all independently coded multiple 5-minute segments of

videotape. Categorizing DMI and SEI components was straightforward, with little

or no discrepancies between coders.

However, discriminating the SI category was initially more challenging. We decided

that not only could there be either appropriate or inappropriate determinations for

when an offensive player was off the ball, but also a neutral coding was possible.

This occurred when the player in question was in an open supportive position but

did not move to that position and did not receive the ball. Furthermore, there were

times when the coded player was not supporting the ball but was not one pass away

from the team mate with the ball and therefore could have obstructed a team mate

who was moving into a position to support. As Oslin et al. (1998) pointed out,

when a basketball game is played with more than two players on a team, there is

always an opportunity for a player not to support the ball: when we coded support

70 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

as ‘neutral’, it simply did not enter into the appropriate/inappropriate equation for the

SI calculation. Following the trial coding phase, the three analysts proceeded to

analyse six 5-minute segments of videotape, and were in 90% agreement across all

three components. This provided an acceptable level of inter-coder reliability as

Oslin et al. (1998) had determined that above 80% was the threshold for reliability.

For each cohort, the pre- and post-questionnaires’ data relating to perceived confi-

dence levels of demonstrating, explaining and teaching the skills, strategies and tactics

of basketball were analyzed using paired sample t tests. This method was chosen

because we took the pre- and post-data summary statistics for within-group compari-

sons. To reduce error, a Bonferroni adjustment was again used. In this instance the

significance level tightened from p ¼ .05 to p ¼ .0083.

Lesson plans from the assignment were categorized as either ‘technical’ or ‘tactical’.

It was easy to determine the approach used because participants had been provided

with tactical and technical lesson-plan templates and were allowed to choose which

one they preferred. The PETE students had also been asked to justify why they

had selected their respective approach. Such information was coded to determine

emergent themes in their rationales through constant comparison (Glaser &

Strauss, 1967). The authors completed this exercise independently and achieved

100% agreement on the emergent themes.

Results

Games play performance

Videotaped 4 versus 4 games enabled us to determine games play performance. Refer

to Table 2 for GPAI summary statistics of each cohort.

The t tests revealed that the GCA group significantly improved in skill execution

(p ¼ 0.006), but gained neither in decision-making nor support. However, the

overall GPAI index of games play showed significant gains among the tactical group

(p ¼ .002). See Table 2 which also indicates that the TGT group participants did

not improve significantly in any games dimension, or overall on their games playing

index.

Table 2. Pre- and post-unit games playing ability scores1

Tactically-taught group Technically-taught group

GPAI

component

Pre-unit

(SD)

Post-unit

(SD) P value

Pre-unit

(SD)

Post-unit

(SD) P value

Skill 3.38 (2.31) 5.87 (1.29) .006� 5.52 (1.51) 10.81 (7.34) .098

Decision

Providing

2.30 (1.87) 3.94 (1.24) .017 3.69 (1.41) 8.81 (7.11) .086

Support 2.15 (1.75) 4.15 (2.31) .045 3.86 (4.25) 7.81 (3.46) .020

Overall Index 2.60 (1.90) 4.64 (1.28) .002� 4.35 (1.72) 9.14 (5.59) .020

1Means (SDs); �significant with p � .0125


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Perceived ability to teach

Initial data analysis examined the differences in perceived abilities within each group

in terms of using skills, demonstrating skills to pupils, knowing strategies, explaining

strategies to pupils, knowing tactics, and explaining tactics to pupils. The results of

the t tests revealed that both groups improved significantly in their perceived use of

skills, but only the tactical group improved significantly in any other area. The tactical

participants’ perceptions of their knowing tactics, explaining tactics and explaining

strategies significantly improved. Please refer to Table 3.

Teaching approach preference

When asked if they would rather use a technical or tactical approach for teaching

basketball in their upcoming teaching practicum, both groups claimed a preference

for the GCA. This inclination grew from pre- to post-instruction. The tactical

group’s final preference was greater with a mean score of 1.97 (pre-unit

mean ¼ 1.73), compared with a post-unit mean score of 1.73 (pre-unit ¼ 1.50) for

the technical group. Interestingly, on their initial questionnaire 27% (n ¼ 4) of the

GCA cohort stated a preference for teaching basketball through a technical perspec-

tive. Although no respondent later re-stated that preference, one did indicate that the

approach choice would depend on pupils’ abilities and aptitude for the game. On the

preliminary survey, nominations for each of the teaching approaches were evenly split

(2 � n ¼ 7) among participants in the TGT cohort. One student was absent during

administration of the questionnaire and so did not contribute pre- or post-module

data for this area. The post-module results also varied for the TGT class. Only

23% indicated that their preference would be to teach basketball using a traditional

approach compared with the 50% prior to the unit.

Our analysis of their planning assignments revealed that both groups preferred to

teach basketball from a tactical perspective. All members of the tactical group

designed lesson plans with a GCA emphasis, although that result might not be

surprising, given that they were taught using this approach. However, contrary to

Table 3. Pre- and post-unit questionnaire scores pertaining to perceived abilities1

Tactically-taught group Technically-taught group

Perceived ability Pre-unit Post-unit P value Pre-test Post-unit P value

Using Skills 2.33 (1.11) 3.93 (.70) .000� 3.31 (1.03) 3.77 (1.30) .002�

Demonstrating Skills 3.20 (1.26) 3.87 (.91) .086 3.54 (.88) 3.92 (1.19) .272

Knowing Strategy 2.33 (1.11) 3.80 (.68) .442 2.92 (.86) 3.54 (.97) .710

Explaining Strategy 2.53 (1.30) 3.87 (.91) .001� 3.23 (.83) 3.61 (1.04) .272

Knowing Tactics 2.20 (1.26) 3.80 (.68) .000� 3.00 (1.08) 3.46 (1.13) .213

Explaining Tactics 2.47 (1.25) 3.87 (.64) .001� 3.00 (1.00) 3.46 (1.13) .111

1Means (SDs); �significant with p � .0083

72 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

their method of basketball instruction, most TGT students (77%) also designed

tactically-oriented lesson plans. Because the participants’ reasons for choosing one

or the other approach were open-ended, some provided multiple explanations that

aided in our understanding their motives. The tactical group highlighted 42

reasons for using the GCA approach, but the technical group only provided 24.

Collectively, the most popular reason for choosing the TGfU-related approach was

the (perceived) attraction of involving pupils more in cognitive processes related to

games play, in other words in developing their ‘games sense’ (Kirk, 2001; Launder,

2001). Sixteen responses (52%) that pertained to pupils’ benefiting from thinking

more, understanding the game better, and/or solving problems during games play

were collectively categorized. As one explained:

Students are given more ownership in the learning process. This is a move away from a

teacher-centred lesson (skills-based approach) to one that encourages high levels of con-

tributions and involvement from pupils, which fosters the development of independent

thought. The [GCA] approach also enables pupils to have a greater appreciation of

when to pass, shoot or dribble, and consider factors that influence decision-making,

such as the position of team-mates and the opposition.

The assumption that a tactical approach to teaching basketball would stimulate

greater interest in playing was the second most common motive (42%) for using a

games understanding model. So wrote a GCA participant:

I have chosen the [TGfU] approach, not so much because it is being practiced in courses

here [at the university], but because it benefits students. As a student, I have enjoyed this

approach more and put more effort into participating, as compared to the mundane tra-

ditional approach.

The third most prevalent response (32%) implied that pupils would be more inter-

ested in playing basketball if games play, rather than skills development, were the

common focus. According to a participant:

Games provide a more lively, interesting, and exciting alternative to learning skills, than

through drills. Games provide the link between skills and tactics as they provide a context

for utilizing skills to solve tactical problems.

Also worth noting was that eight respondents (26%) mentioned that the GCA

might be beneficial because their pupils would be able to transfer concepts from

one game to another. In agreement with Bunker and Thorpe (1986), their claim

was that if pupils understood the concept of ball possession in basketball they

would be able to transfer that knowledge to another invasion game, say soccer. A

further six respondents (19%) mentioned that using a tactical approach would

enable them to contextualize skills development activities in games situations and

so enable pupils to understand why skills practice was needed.

Of the three TGT participants who elected not to use the GCA approach in their

lesson plans, two used a traditional approach. Perhaps hedging her bets, the other

chose to use a technical approach for the first three lessons to ensure basic skill acqui-

sition and then took up a tactical approach in planning the final five lessons of her unit.

The two technicists mentioned that they were more comfortable with this approach


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

than with the GCA and that they believed that teaching basic skills was essential. As

one stated:

I have chosen the Skills approach for the method of conducting my lessons as I am more

familiar with this style. It is important for pupils to acquire some essential, basic skills

which will enable them to play and appreciate the game.

Discussion

Perceived ability to teach—tactical group

The results from the questionnaires demonstrated that the tactically-taught partici-

pants’ perceptions of their abilities to use skills and explain strategies, as well as to

understand and explain tactics pertaining to basketball improved significantly over

the length of the study. This finding is not surprising given that the GCA group spent

most of its lesson time in situational games activities, and was also regularly challenged

in questioning sessions that repeatedly focused on finding games-related solutions.

The more we study and teach through a tactical approach for games, the more valu-

able appears questioning (McNeill et al., 2004). Each 50-minute GCA lesson had

both an initial and a concluding situational game with a conceptual focus; and both

were succeeded by whole-class questioning sessions that typically lasted about five

minutes. Across all lessons, Steve’s whole-class questioning of the GCA cohort

totalled three hours. As pedagogues, we see questioning as critical to developing

games players because cognition is an integral component of ‘games sense’ (Macdo-

nald, 2004). In the current context, we valued a conceptual focus being made before

the game as ‘leading’ bodily learning, as Steve regularly encouraged the students to

reference what was occurring during play. Subsequent whole-class questioning

around a scenario that occurred during play was equally valuable for ‘trailing’

bodily learning as it enhanced deep understanding through encouraging the players

to reflect on, analyse and resolve the situational problem. Without pre-setting the

conceptual focus in order to scaffold the subsequent after-play, questioning about a

relevant games scenario within the GCA approach is potentially less effective.

Additionally, questioning participants during a game about what is transpiring and

why requires them to use higher-order thinking skills that are essential for developing

games-sense. We agree with Kirk and MacPhail (2002), in their proposed revision to

the TGfU model, that students need to ‘think strategically’ while playing games.

Steve’s questioning sessions during real games time gave players an immediate oppor-

tunity to reflect on their decisions, actions, thoughts and feelings and importantly

enabled them to connect such cognition and emotion to their bodily activity. Here,

the bodily action is central to games understanding (Cheville, 2001). The post-

opening game’s questioning also gave relevance to the games skills development

phase which followed, in that Steve created playing conditions which provided

context. We suggest that is why the tactical participants of this study expressed con-

fidence not only for teaching tactics and strategies but also in using skills necessary

for playing the game of basketball.

74 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Another aspect of the questioning sessions that warrants discussion was Steve’s

decision to probe understanding either in the class as a whole or in small groups.

We also agree with Kirk and MacPhail’s (2002) suggestion that teachers who use a

TGfU approach should modify games to meet the needs of individual students

because they have varying experiences, understandings and abilities related to the

game being played. In this study, the needs of participants greatly varied. Therefore,

Steve decided that it would be more appropriate to question them in their small-sided

games groups, because overall, individuals and groups varied in their abilities to play

situational games. Moreover, within small-sided play, questioning becomes more

personally relevant than is whole-class questioning, because it is targeted specifically

at the games performance of particular players and their opponents.

Game play performance—tactical group

Tactical participants also improved significantly overall in their games playing

performance (skill execution, decision making and support) as established by the

GPAI. The two situational games that were featured in every session on average

totalled 30 minutes. Taken over time, the participants engaged in nine hours of

games playing activity. Given this process aspect of GCA teaching, we reasonably

expected that they would improve significantly in their abilities to play the game as

the focus of the unit was games play. Again, it seemed that questioning helped in

that, as a teaching strategy, it is complementary to games play; that is, developing

‘games sense’ is not merely about developing understanding about games play, but

rather it is about helping students become players who embody that understanding.

In other words, becoming games players involves doing, not just thinking, but

players have to think about their learning to play (Launder, 2001), not just mindlessly

‘going through the motions’. Probing learners’ thinking is important, especially when

that thought is embedded in play. Then, the GCA-taught learners have taken on

games play in a body–mind sense; this is what Cheville (2001) and others refer to

as embodied practice. Although Cheville argues that the body is important for all lear-

ners, it is especially so for games learner-players, and games learner-teachers. For

example, a strategy to help maintain possession of the ball is for ‘off-the-ball’ team

mates to support their player with the ball; when Steve asked, ‘Why were you success-

ful in maintaining possession?’, one response was related to the quality of their

‘support off the ball’. This cognitive processing therefore reinforces ‘knowing’ this

strategy and subsequently engendering that knowing in action.

Perceived ability to teach—technical group

Questionnaire responses analysis revealed that the TGT participants’ perceptions of

their ability to use skills pertaining to basketball improved significantly over the length

of the study. Scrutiny of the unit content (Table 1) for the technical group reveals that

the first 12 lessons were taught almost exclusively through technical drills. Roughly

70% of the overall engaged time with this group was spent in Steve’s explaining


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

and/or demonstrating techniques and participants’ engaging in technical drills.

Therefore, we were not surprised that the TGT student-players responded with a sig-

nificant increase in their perceived ability to use skills. Discussions and questions

related to tactics and strategies for them did not occur in the first 12 lessons and

Steve only used these interactive strategies thereafter in a content-centred,

‘knowing that’ way. On the other hand, comparative statistics substantiated the

expectation that TGT participants would not improve significantly in their perceived

abilities of understanding and explaining tactics and strategies.

Game play performance—technical group

The TGT participants did improve significantly in their ability to execute skills as

measured by the GPAI. However, they did not improve significantly overall in their

games play index. As games play and related discussions were featured in approxi-

mately 30% of the time for this group, this result could perhaps be anticipated. A

likely key component in explaining these results lies in Steve’s questioning that aug-

mented practice for the TGT participants. These sessions are not a key characteristic

of a teacher-centred, technical pedagogy, but nevertheless Steve questioned at least

once every session, invariably after play had concluded. However, the questions typi-

cally engaged lower-order thinking skills, because he usually asked for recalling ‘how’

something was done: ‘What are the components of a cross-over dribble?’ Even when

questions were related to the strategy of a ‘give and go’, for instance, Steve’s emphasis

was not on how using this strategy could create and utilize space in attack, but rather

on “When do you cut in front or behind the defender?” Thus, this post-game discus-

sion exemplified questioning as a ‘trailing’ strategy—important, but less powerful than

the questioning that occurred during games play with its immediate reference and

significance.

Care was taken to go from skills development drills to small-sided games, such as 2

versus 2, 3 versus 3 and 4 versus 4, before the regulation-sized 5 versus 5. We planned

thus because we view basketball as a complicated game that is difficult to play in the

regulation, 5-aside setting. Furthermore, in small-sided games, such as 2 versus 2, all

participants are guaranteed involvement in the play, and multiple ‘touches’ of the ball

are unavoidable, at least for the team in possession. In short, whatever the way of

teaching, using modified and conditioned small-sided games are an important basis

for the progression to regulation play.

Teaching preference—tactical and technical groups

The result that at unit-end all but one of the 15 participants in the tactical group

stated a preference for teaching basketball through the GCA was not a surprise.

Graber (1989) identified a studentship characteristic called ‘fronting’ (pp. 66–67).

With fronting, it is not uncommon for students to display selected behaviours in

the hope of being favourably perceived by their lecturer(s). In the local context, this

impression management is known as ‘giving face’, a mark of showing respect.

76 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Accepting that the tactical group was so taught, we might assume that the students

would have been influenced to answer with a preferred tactical response, so seeking

to give the impression that they had taken on an institutional or lecturer-held belief

as their own.

Perhaps more difficult to explain was the TGT group’s expression of their prefer-

ences for teaching basketball. The pre-unit result revealed that 50% of the technical

participants preferred a tactical approach, yet this increased to 71% by unit-end. Poss-

ibly that group viewed their traditional experience more critically than usual; as their

counterparts were engaged in a tactical approach and, because students in each

cohort sometimes socialized together, there could have been a degree of cross-

group ‘contamination’. We might speculate that this favoured perception arose

from discussion between participants of both groups regarding how they were being

taught by Steve. One TGT participant, whose post-unit preference changed in

favour of the GCA, wrote that the tactical approach ‘enables students to see the

relevance of the skills in game situations, unlike the traditional approach.’ Of interest

to us was a passage from another technical participant who chose the technical

approach for pre- as well as post-instruction surveys. As she wrote in her second

questionnaire,

Personally I am still not very familiar with basketball strategies so I won’t attempt to use it

[a tactical approach] to teach strategies. If given a choice, I will choose to teach more

skills and fewer strategies.

This response highlights the point that if university faculty model their teaching of

activity classes through a technical approach, then there is increased likelihood that

PETE graduates will follow suit when they teach in schools, particularly when they

would not have previously experienced a tactical approach in their own games

schooling.

Teaching preference pertaining to lesson plans

The most common reason in justifying the teaching approach adopted in their basket-

ball planning assignment, that a tactical approach would have cognitive benefits to

pupils, is generally consistent with findings from comparable research. Rink et al.’s

review (1996) of tactical and technical teaching studies indicated that tactically-

taught students perform better on tests of tactical knowledge than do their techni-

cally-taught peers. Other studies by Turner (1996) and Turner and Martinek (1999)

have shown that tactical pupils make better decisions during games than do their tech-

nical peers. As the latter researchers stated,

The trend toward better decision making and enhanced declarative and procedural

knowledge by the ‘games for understanding’ group suggests that a cognitive benefit is

derived from using this approach in teaching games to children (Turner & Martinek,

1999, p. 293).

Although research in this area is not definitive, the possibility for cognitive benefits

exists and certainly these PETE students saw them to be important.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

The second most common reason for choosing a tactical approach for teaching

basketball was motivation, in that respondents believed pupils would be more inter-

ested in this alternative to a traditional approach. This is another outcome supported

by findings from several other studies (Lawton, 1989; Griffin et al., 1995; Turner,

1996). The participants’ third reason for choosing a tactical approach, an increase

in game activity, is closely related to the previous argument: games activity tends to

stimulate students: ‘They constantly ask, “When can we play a game?”’ (Chandler,

1996, p. 49). He also wrote about pupils and the ‘self-propelling’ motivation of under-

standing and wanting to play better which,

. . . motivates us to return to the game. Because the TGfU approach is both game[s]-

dependent and student-centered, rather than being content-centered or teacher-

centered, it provides such self-propelling motivation’ (p. 49).

The participants’ responses as to why they chose to plan lessons using a tactical

approach demonstrated, what seemed to be, a clear understanding of perceived

benefits of the approach. We can only speculate how those responses were derived

because we did not directly ask. All students in this study had been exposed to the

tactical approach through a games principles module and a pedagogical module that

focused on indirect methods of teaching. The latter academic unit also included

opportunities for participants to teach using a tactical approach to pupils in schools.

The theory related to perceived benefits of the GCA was taught in both modules

and participants themselves had an opportunity to experience teaching using the

approach in the real-world setting of schools. These modules and experiences surely

have had an impact on the PETE students’ beliefs about teaching games to pupils.

Situated learning for adults

Returning to a situated learning perspective for adult PE student teachers, we believe

that their learning to teach games through a combination of tactics and techniques is

important. Therefore, more extensive use of a tactical approach as a model when

teaching within the undergraduate PETE programme will reinforce the link

between tactics and techniques in contextualized settings. If student teachers can

be taught within situations that challenge their intellectual as well as psychomotor

abilities, there will be a greater likelihood that they will apply that learning to their

working environment (Lankard, 1995); such is Cheville’s notion of embodied prac-

tice. The regular questioning phases used by the teacher in this study encouraged

the tactical participants to solve problems, reflect on their skill execution and

decision-making, and evaluate overall games performance through strategic thinking.

As a result, the tactical approach promoted more of the cognitive apprenticeship

model alluded to earlier, whereas the technical approach was lacking in the quantity

of games-centred instruction and therefore offered less to the students. A key com-

ponent of this difference appears to be not just the quantity of games play, but even

more importantly the type of questioning that was facilitated for both groups. Regard-

less of the approach that PETE students eventually choose for teaching games,

exposure to a tactical approach will broaden their professional outlook and this will

78 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

ultimately enhance their pupils’ games sense, transforming pupils into informed

players who are better tactical decision-makers.

The question of whether to teach games solely through tactics still has to be

addressed. There is some concern among physical educators, especially PETE

students in our local context (McNeill et al., 2004), that understanding without

pupils’ having basic technical skills is no less frustrating than their having technical

ability without understanding. We agree with Holt et al. (2002) when they wrote,

Skill development is explicitly included in tactical approaches, just as games play is a part

of technical approaches. The crucial point is when to introduce tactical or technical skills’

(p. 164).

Further Launder’s (2001, p. 14) justification for play practice promoting exper-

imentation where learners are encouraged ‘to try out moves and tactics, to try on

roles, all without the threat of criticism’ is an important consideration for legitimizing

failure and keeping a balanced perspective in our pedagogy.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of different teaching approaches

affected the game playing ability, perceived ability to teach, teaching approach prefer-

ence and lesson plan designs of final-year PETE students. The results suggest that the

tactical group improved significantly in overall games play performance, and percep-

tions of their abilities to teach tactics and strategies and use of basketball skills signifi-

cantly improved. Alternatively, the technical group participants notably improved in

their skill execution during games play as did their perception of their ability to use

basketball skills in games situations. Tactical participants were unanimous in their

choice of tactical lesson plans for their module assignment, whereas 80% (n ¼ 15)

of the technical group also chose tactical lesson plans. When providing their ratio-

nale(s) for choosing tactical plans, the most popular reasons were: engaging pupils

cognitively; stimulating pupil interest; allowing for more game play; and providing

pupils the opportunity to transfer concepts from one game to another.

The overriding preference of participants from both groups to teach basketball

through a tactical approach was an unanticipated finding. Although there have

been numerous studies that examined the tactical approach to teaching games, no

research has been published pertaining to the crucial population of PETE students.

If these potential facilitators of learning in schools’ PE are not empowered with this

knowledge, there is little chance of their developing a constructivist pedagogy. Socia-

lization research suggests that there are many obstacles in the path of novice teachers

who may choose a tactical approach to teach games. Therefore, more research is

needed to determine what support structures in the professional and occupational

socialization of physical educators will lead to effective teaching through a tactical

approach. A follow-up investigation with the participants in this study could

provide valuable information about the ‘wash out’ effect (Wright, 2001). The

question begs as to the extent these PETE students will choose to teach games


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

through a tactical approach when they operate in schools. Or, will they revert to and

maintain the status quo by teaching games through a technical approach? In regard to

the technical approach, what can be done to address the concerns about poor prac-

tices that have been highlighted by Bunker and Thorpe (1986)? Surely such a long-

standing approach, hegemonic in the teaching of games, does have important and

positive qualities. What are these and how might the weaker features be reduced or

eliminated?

Given that games play is such a critical part of school physical education curricula,

its importance in PETE cannot be overstated. Prospective teachers should be given

ample opportunities to study and practice various approaches to teaching games.

Instead of trying to determine which is best, efforts should be made to determine

the strengths of each approach. Continued examination of the technical and tactical

approaches related to games teaching to PETE students is warranted and follow-up

studies to determine styles used by participants while teaching in schools would be

valuable.

References

Almond, L. (1986) Reflecting on themes: a games classification, in: R. Thorpe, D. Bunker &

L. Almond (Eds) Rethinking games teaching (Loughborough, Loughborough University),

71–72.

Almond, L. (2001) A historical perspective, keynote address presented at the International

Conference for Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport, Waterville

Valley, New Hampshire, 1 August.

Berkowitz, R. (1996) A practitioner’s journey: from skill to tactics, Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 44–45.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning,

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.

Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools, Bulletin of

Physical Education, 18(1), 5–8.

Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1986) The curriculum model, in: R. Thorpe, D. Bunker & L. Almond

(Eds) Rethinking games teaching (Loughborough, Loughborough University), 7–10.

Butler, J. (1996) Teacher responses to teaching games for understanding, Journal of Physical

Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(9), 17–20.

Chandler, T. (1996) Teaching games for understanding: reflections and further questions, Journal of

Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 49–51.

Cheville, J. (2001) Minding the body: what student athletes know about learning (Portsmouth, NH,

Boynton/Cook).

Dewar, A. M. (1989) Recruitment in physical education teaching: toward a critical approach,

in: T. Templin & P. Schempp (Eds) Socialization into physical education: learning to teach (India-

napolis, IN, Benchmark), 39–58.

Ennis, C. D. (1996) Students’ experiences in sport-based physical education: [more than] apologies

are necessary, Quest, 48, 453–456.

French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Rink, J. E., Taylor, K. & Hussey, K. (1996) The effects of a 3-week

unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of

ninth grade students, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 418–438.

French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K. & Jones, J. (1996) The effects of a 6-week unit

of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth

grade students, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 439–463.

80 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research

(New York, Aldine).

Graber, K. (1989) Teaching tomorrow’s teachers: professional preparation as an agent of socializa-

tion, in: T. Templin & P. Schempp (Eds) Socialization into physical education: learning to teach

(Indianapolis, IN, Benchmark), 68–69.

Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A. & Oslin, J. L. (1997) Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games

approach (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).

Griffin, L. L., Oslin, J. L. & Mitchell, S. A. (1995) An analysis of two instructional approaches to

teaching net games [Abstract], Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 (Suppl.), A–64.

Griffin, L. L. & Placek, J. H. (2001) The understanding and development of learners’

domain-specific knowledge [Monograph], Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20,

299–416.

Griffin, L. L. & Sheehy, D. (2004) Using the tactical games model to develop problem-solvers in

physical education, in: J. Wright, D. Macdonald & L. Burrows (Eds) Critical inquiry and

problem-solving in physical education (London, Routledge), 33–48.

Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B. & Bengoechea, E. G. (2002) Expanding the teaching games for under-

standing model: new avenues for future research and practice, Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 21, 162–176.

Hopper, T. (2002) Teaching games for understanding: the importance of student emphasis over

content emphasis, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 73(7), 44–48.

Kirk, D. (1986) Critical pedagogy for teacher education: toward an inquiry-oriented approach,

Quest, 5, 236–246.

Kirk, D. (2001) Future directions for teaching games for understanding/game sense, keynote

address presented at the International Conference on Teaching Games for Understanding in

Physical Education and Sport, Waterville Valley, New Hampshire, 1 August.

Kirk, D., Brooker, R. & Braiuka, S. (2000) Teaching games for understanding: a situated perspec-

tive on student learning, paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, New Orleans, 1–5 April.

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.

Langley, D. J. & Knight, S. M. (1996) Exploring practical knowledge: a case study of an experienced

senior tennis performer, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 433–447.

Lankard, B. A. (1995) New ways of learning in the workplace (Columbus, OH, ERIC Clearinghouse on

Adult Career and Vocational Education) (ED 385 778).

Launder, A. (2001) Play practice: the games approach to teaching and coaching sports (Adelaide, SA,

Human Kinetics).

Lawton, J. (1989) Comparison of two teaching methods in games, Bulletin of Physical Education,

25(1), 35–38.

Macdonald, D. (2004) Understanding learning in physical education, in: J. Wright, D. Macdonald

& L. Burrows (Eds) Critical inquiry and problem-solving in physical education (London,

Routledge), 16–29.

McMorris, T. (1998) Teaching games for understanding: its contribution to the knowledge of skill

acquisition from a motor learning perspective, European Journal of Physical Education, 3(1),

65–74.

McNeill, M. C., Fry, J. M., Wright, S. C., Tan, W. C., Tan, K. S. & Schempp, P. G. (2004) ‘In the

local context’: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum, Sport, Education and

Society, 9, 3–32.

McPherson, S. L. & French, K. E. (1991) Changes in cognitive strategies and motor skill in tennis,

Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 26–41.

Ministry of Education (1999) Revised physical education syllabus for primary, secondary, and pre-

university levels (Singapore, Curriculum Planning and Development Division).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L. & Oslin, J. L. (1995) The effects of two instructional approaches on

game performance, Pedagogy in Practice: Teaching and Coaching in Physical Education and

Sports, 1(1), 36–48.

Mitchell, S. A. & Oslin, J. L. (1999) An investigation of tactical transfer in net games, European

Journal of Physical Education, 4, 162–172.

Mosston, M. (1966) Teaching physical education (Columbus, OH, Merrill).

Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S. (2002) Teaching physical education (5th edn) (San Francisco, CA,

Benjamin Cummings).

Oslin, J. L. (1996) Tactical approaches to teaching games [Feature Ed], Journal of Physical

Education, Recreation and Dance, 67, 27.

Oslin, J. L, Mitchell, S. A. & Griffin, L. L. (1998) The game performance assessment instrument:

development and preliminary validation, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17,

231–243.

Plymouth State College (2001) International Conference 2001: Teaching Games for Understanding in

Physical Education and Sport, Waterville Valley, New Hampshire, 1–4 August.

Richard, J. F. & Griffin, L. (2001) Assessing game performance: an introduction to using the TSAP

and GPAI, paper presented at the International Conference on Teaching Games for Understanding

in Physical Education and Sport, Waterville Valley, New Hampshire, 1–4 August.

Rink, J. E. (2001) Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy, Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 20, 112–128.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E. & Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1996) Foundations for the learning and instruction of

sport and games, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 399–417.

Rovegno, I., Nevett, M. & Babiarz, M. (2001) Learning and teaching invasion-game tactics in 4th

grade: introduction and theoretical perspective, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20,

341–351.

Stein, D. (1998) Situated learning in adult education (Columbus, OH, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult

Career and Vocational Education) (ED 418 250).

Tan, K. S. S. & Tan, E. K. H. (2000) Managing change within the physical education curriculum:

issues, opportunities and challenges, in: J. Tan, S. Gopinathan & W. K. Ho (Eds) Challenges

facing the Singapore education system today (Singapore, Prentice Hall), 50–70.

Turner, A. (1996) Teaching for understanding: myth or reality, Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46–47, 55.

Turner, A. P. & Martinek, T. J. (1992) A comparative analysis of two models for teaching

games (technique approach and game-centered–tactical focus–approach), International

Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15–31.

Turner, A. P. & Martinek, T. J. (1999) An investigation into teaching games for understanding:

effects on skill, knowledge, and game play, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(3),

286–296.

Turner, A. P., Allison, P. C. & Pissanos, B. W. (2001) Constructing a concept of skillfulness in

invasion games within a games for understanding context, European Journal of Physical

Education, 6(1), 38–54.

University of Melbourne (2003) 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education

for Understanding, Melbourne, Australia, 11–14 December.

Werner, P., Thorpe, R. & Bunker, D. (1996) Teaching games for understanding: evolution of a

model, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 28–33.

Wilson, G. (2002) A framework for teaching tactical game knowledge, Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation and Dance, 73(1), 20–26.

Wright, S. (2001) Implementation of the games concept approach from the cooperating teachers’

perspective, paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle,

Australia, December.

82 S. Wright et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:22

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Documents

Teaching teachers to play and teach games