8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

1/255

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

2/255

Copyright by

Peng Zhang

2008

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

3/255

ii

ABSTRACT

Play Practice (Launder 2001) has been proposed as an alternative approach to

teaching sport, however it has little empirical support. The purpose of this study was

to examine the effects of Play Practice compared to Sport, Fitness, and Health

Program, SFHP, instruction in teaching young adults four table tennis skills. College

students (N=56) in four classes taught by two instructors participated in the study.

Each instructor taught one class using Play Practice and one using SFHP instruction

for an eleven day unit. A nonequivalent control group qausi-experimental design was

used to access the pre and post unit performance of participants using four measures:

(a) the forehand drive accuracy, (b) forehand attack, (c) service, and (d) alternation

performance.

A Pearson-product coefficient correlation revealed five of six significant and

moderate correlations among the four dependent measures in pretest scores. A

pretest MANOVA confirmed no Group differences (F[4,51]=.91, p>.05) on four

dependent measures between Play Practice and SFHP Instruction group, (a) forehand

drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test.

After the intervention, a 2 Group (PP, CI) x 2 Time (Pre-, Post-) MANOVA with

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

4/255

iii

repeated measures assessed pre-to-posttest improvements between the Play Practice

and SFHP Instruction intervention. A significant Group x Time interaction was

found,F(4, 51) = 5.16,p < .01, = .29. Paired sample t-tests indicated pretest to

posttest improvements in both groups on the four dependent measures. The only

non-significant difference finding was on the alternation test.

Results from this study demonstrate the effectiveness of the Play Practice

instruction on teaching young adults table tennis skills. The findings suggest that Play

Practice is an alternative and effective approach to teaching sport in physical

education. Future studies should focus on measuring the effects of Play Practice on

learners cognitive and affective learning and continue to explore its effect on

teaching other sports and physical activities.

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

5/255

iv

Dedicated to my parents:

Yanru Wang and Zhenhua Zhang

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

6/255

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My first thanks go to the United States, the country where I have stayed for four

years. When I first arrived on you years ago, I had known that my life would be

exceptional, but it has been even more amazing than I expected. I have become more

mature, knowledgeable, and independent. I appreciate these changes in my life.

To my advisor, Dr. Ward, a magnificent scholar in physical education and a

precursor of Play Practice research, thank you for opening the door and efficiently

supporting me to figure out numerous problems in the process of the research. I feel

very blessed that you raised me up on your shoulders so that I could see further than

others doing this research.

To Dr. Goodway, I want to thank you for your considerable efforts and advise on

this research. The valuable suggestions and edits you provided ensured the

dissertation to be tight and professional. Also, your four Thanksgiving meals have

been unforgettable and have always made me feel as though I am a part of your

family.

To Dr. Sutherland, many thanks for your contribution to the dissertation. Your

expertise and passions on sport and Play Practice raised the quality of the entire study.

To Dr. Robert Hite, my cognate advisor and role model being an excellent

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

7/255

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

8/255

vii

VITA

August 11, 1979 . Born Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China

2001 Bachelor of Education (Honors):

Beijing Sport University

Beijing, ChinaArea: Athletic Training

2004 Master of Education:

Beijing Sport University

Beijing, China

Area: Physical Education

2004 present. Graduate Teaching Associate

The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

FIELD OF STUDY

Major Field: Education

Area of Emphasis: Physical Education Teacher Education

Cognate: Teacher Education

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

9/255

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract................................................................................................................ii

Dedication ...............................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgments....................................................................................................vVita.........................................................................................................................vii

List of Tables ..........................................................................................................xii

List of Figures ........................................................................................................xiii

Chapters: Page

1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the problem....................................................................... 4

Research questions............................................................................. 6

Significance of the study ....................................................................... 8

Limitations ............................................................................................. 8

Delimitations .......................................................................................... 9

Definitions of terms ............................................................................... 10

2. Review of Literature ..................................................................................... 13

The problems in teaching sport............................................................. 13The role of teacher content knowledge...................................... 14

The role of the multiple activity curriculum.. 19

The role of technical only approach...... 22

The role of teacher feedback. 25

The role of the learners motivation and attitude...... 26

Implications .. 27

Curriculum models proposed for the teaching of sports in PE..... 30

The Teaching Games for Understanding.. 31

Background..... 31

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

10/255

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

11/255

x

Intervention development...................... 104

The similarities of the treatment and comparison group............... 105

The differences of Play Practice and SFHP instruction ............... 108

Treatment integrity........ 113

Training of study personal..... 114

Data analysis...... 118

4. Results............................................................................................................ 120

Inter-observer Agreement...................................................................... 120

Treatment integrity ................................................................................ 121

The results of dependent measures ....................................................... 121

Results of the first research question............................................ 123

Results of the second research question........................................ 125

Results of the third research question............................................ 132

Results of the fourth research question......................................... 132

Summary ............................................................................................... 133

5. Discussion...................................................................................................... 135

Pretest scores ......................................................................................... 135

The Non-significant difference on pretest measures...................... 136

Correlations among the dependent measures................................ 136

Time x Group effects and the intervention analysis....................... 137

Competition and game format practice................................. 139

Purposefully modified games................................................ 140

The strength of the study................................................................... 143The weakness of the study..................................................................... 146

Methodological suggestions for future studies...................................... 149

Implications for teaching sport in physical education....................... 154

Implication for physical education teacher education .. 157

References ......................................................................................................... 159

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

12/255

xi

Appendices. 170

A. IRB Approval.................................................................................... 170

B. Course syllabus................................................................................. 172

C. Class organization............................................................................. 185

D. Forehand drive accuracy test instrument.......................................... 187

E. Forehand attack test instrument........................................................ 189

F. Serve test instrument ........................................................................ 191

G. Alternation test instrument............................................................... 193

H. Lesson plans for Play Practice group............................................... 195

I. Lesson plans for SFHP Instruction group.......................................... 216

J. The multiple ball activity procedure.................................................. 240

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

13/255

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Sports and games classifications........................................................................34

2.2 Three Instructional Approaches of Teaching Sport............................................58

2.3 Five Variables Used to Shape the Game.............................................................69

3.1 Characteristics of Participants in the Study........................................................84

3.2 The Statement and Demonstration of the Forehand Accuracy Test...................93

3.3 The Statement and Demonstration of the Attacking Test...................................96

3.4 The Statement and Demonstration of the Serving Test......................................99

3.5 The Example of Alternating Test Data Collection ...........................................102

3.6 Statement and Demonstration of the Alternating Test......................................104

3.7 Course Schedule................................................................................................107

3.8 The treatment procedure...112

3.9 The differences between the treatment and comparison groups...112

3.10 Sample Checklist of Procedural Integrity (Treatment Group) .......................113

3.11 Sample Checklist of Procedural Integrity (Comparison Group).....................114

3.12 Pre-instruction Training Schedule...................................................................115

3.13 Workshop Agenda of Play Practice..................................................................117

3.14 Research Questions, Variables, and Analytic Methods....................................119

4.1 Treatment Integrity Data for Treatment Group..................................................122

4.2 Treatment Integrity Data for Comparison Group...............................................122

4.3 Correlation Data of Pretest Dependent Measures..............................................123

4.4 Pre- and Posttest Raw Scores of Dependent Measures..........124

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

14/255

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

2.1 The Teaching Games for Understanding model.................................................38

2.2 The Tactical Game Model..................................................................................43

2.3 The Play Practice Model....................................................................................65

3.1 Diagram of the research design of the study......................................................86

3.2 Diagram of the intervention assignment of the study.........................................87

3.3 Table Tennis Skills Tests.....................................................................................88

3.4 The context of the forehand drive accuracy test.................................................91

3.5 The procedure of the attack test..........................................................................94

3.6 The Context of the Serving Test.........................................................................98

3.7 The Procedure of the Alternating Test...............................................................102

3.8 The practice of forehand drive crosscourt in two groups..109

3.9 Half vs. Half Play..110

4.1 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Drive Accuracy Measures..128

4.2 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Forehand Attack Measures................129

4.3 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Serve Measures..................................130

4.4 Time Effect from Pretest to Posttest on Alternation Measures.........................131

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

15/255

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In the U. S.A. physical education has a close relationship with sport. Since the

beginning of the twentieth century, the teaching and learning of many forms of

institutionalized sport have been a significant component of school education (Metzler,

2005). Sport has often been defined as the instructional core for physical education,

with objectives including knowledge, health, fitness, and skills at all grade levels

(Siedentop, 1991). Although in recent decades the physical education curriculum has

expanded with curricula such as the social development model (Hellison, 1978; 1983)

and the health-related model (Corbin & Lindsey, 1999; McKenzie & Sallis, 1996),

sport is still the largest portion of school physical education in the U. S. (Holt, Stream,

& Bengoechea, 2002; Metzler, 2005; Rink, French, & Tjeerdsma, 1996).

In schools, regardless of grade level, students often have the opportunity to learn

different types of sport such as basketball, baseball, hockey, and soccer (Holt, et al.,

2002; Griffin, Dodds, Placek, & Tremino, 2001; Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1986).

Moreover, the significant role of sport in physical education is clearly illustrated in

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

16/255

2

the National Standards for Physical Education which states that physically educated

individuals must demonstrate (a) competency in motor skills and movement

patterns needed to perform a variety of physical activities, and (b) understanding of

movement concepts, principles, strategies, and tactics as they apply to the learning

and performance of physical activities (NASPE, 2004).

Although sport has played an important role in school physical education, the

learning outcomes of playing sport has been described as problematic (Bunker &

Thorpe, 1982; Rink et al., 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1999). The core of the problem

has been that children have left school not knowing and how to play the sports they

have supposedly learned in physical education (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982).

Researchers and physical educators have found that many students have neither the

knowledge nor the motor competency necessary for effective play after they have

learned the sport in physical education (Thorpe et al., 1986; Mitchell, Oslin, &

Griffin, 2006).

Many researchers have been concerned about the nature of the way sport that

was taught in physical education (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin,

1997; Mitchell et al., 2006; Thorpe et al., 1986). Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argued

that the traditional instructional approach of teaching sport overemphasized the

learning of sport techniques, but ignored the learning of tactical knowledge and

strategies. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) believed that the instruction of sport should be

focused upon cognitive outcomes such as understanding what to do and when to

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

17/255

3

do it in game play situations. Thorpe et al. (1986) claimed that traditional

instruction failed to facilitate students to transfer their learning from practice to game

play. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) and Thorpe et al. (1986) observed that students

frequently were unable to participate in the game due to an inability to use

techniques in a game situation.

As a result of concerns about poor learning outcomes researchers designed a

number of instructional and curriculum models to address the problem (Bunker &

Thorpe, 1982; Griffin et al., 1997; Siedentop, 1994; Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der

Mars, 2004). Bunker and Thorpe (1982) created a model of Teaching Games for

Understanding to address game appreciation in learning sport. Siedentop (1994)

designed the Sport Education Model for the purpose of enriching the experiences of

playing sport. Griffin and her colleagues (1997) designed the Tactical Game Model

in which the instructor uses games to facilitate students understanding of the sport.

These instructional models have been widely cited in the literature (Hastie, 2003;

Metzler, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2006; Siedentop, 2002; Wallhead & OSullivan,

2005).

A small but growing research base in these models has been produced in the

past two and half decades (Alexander & Luckman, 2001, Allison & Thorpe, 1997;

Carlson & Hastie, 1997, Chandler & Mitchell, 1990; Hastie & Sharpe, 1999; French,

Werner, Rink, Taylor, Hussey, & Jones, 1996; Griffin, Oslin, & Mitchell, 1995,

Turner & Martinek, 1995 & 1999; Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004). Researchers have

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

18/255

4

typically compared a model to the technical instructional method and examined the

effects of these approaches in teaching various sport events (i. e. hockey) across

different settings in elementary and secondary physical education.

While many studies have examined the effect of the Teaching Games for

Understanding, Sport Education, and the Tactical Game Model, no significant results

have been found to support the superiority of any new instructional method over the

traditional way of teaching sport games (Holt, Ward, & Wallhead, 2006; Rink et al.,

1996; Wallhead & OSullivan, 2005).

Statement of the Problem

Australian physical educator Alan Launder has proposed an alternative

instructional approach to teaching youth sport called Play Practice (Launder, 2001).

Play Practice provides a theoretical framework for teaching children and youth to

play sports. Its initial aim is to facilitate beginners to really enjoy playing sport and

to help them become competent enough to go on with an activity if they want after

they enter adulthood (Launder, 2001). Launder (2001) conceptualized and presented

Play Practice in the bookPlay Practice: The game approach to teaching and

coaching sports.

Play Practice emphasizes some characteristics of teaching sport that have not

been addressed in either the traditional or more recent instructional approaches

(Launder, 2001; Holt et al., 2006). Launder believes that learners needed to be

competent players of the techniques and tactics of the sport (what to do and how to

do itquestions). The instruction of sport must be able to address the sport techniques

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

19/255

5

and tactics necessary for effective play. Launder (2001) emphasizes the critical role

of good practice in learning sport and the significant function of game play as

motivating participation. By turning effective practice into game play, Play Practice

instruction integrates practice and play while providing different practice for learners

to develop the sport skills (Launder, 2001).

Play practice uses three pedagogical techniques. First,Focusing play helps

teachers identify the sport skills essential for effective game play. These skills serve

as the objective of teaching the sport and allow the instructor to address the correct

and appropriate content of the class. Shaping play ensures the application of the

instructional objectives so that learners can eventually gain sport knowledge and

skills. It makes certain that learners precisely experience, practice, and work on the

objectives beneficial for effective game play. Finally,Enhancing play provides

progressions of practice to continuously improve the learning of the skills. By

appropriately increasing or decreasing the challenge and difficulty of the play, Play

Practice drills purposefully strengthen the learning achievement in a developmental

manner.

Despite its efficacy, Play Practice has not significantly contributed to the

everyday practice of teaching in physical education. Few teachers know of Play

Practice and even fewer have applied it to their students. One of the rationales for

this situation results from the dearth of empirical research on the instructional model,

which potentially impedes the understanding and dissemination of Play Practice.

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

20/255

6

Consequently future research should connect the merits of Play Practice to the

unsolved problematic issue of teaching youth sport in physical education. Scholars

also need to research the topic and devote time and energy to spread Play Practice to

physical educators.

The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of Play Practice in teaching

young adults table tennis. By comparing the SFHP instruction of teaching table

tennis in the setting, this study specifically focused on the learning outcome on the

forehand drive, serve, and attack performance after an instructional unit with Play

Practice. The following research questions guided this study design and methods.

Research Question

Research Question 1:

Were there significant differences between the Play Practice (PP) and the SFHP

Instruction (CI) group on pretest measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b)

forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test?

Hypothesis:

There were no significant differences between the Play Practice (PP) and SFHP

Instruction (CI) group on pretest measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b)

forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test.

Research Question 2:

Were there significant differences between the Play Practice and SFHP

Instruction group from pretest to posttest on the dependent measures of the: (a)

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

21/255

7

forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d)

alternation test?

Hypothesis:

There were significant differences between the Play Practice and SFHP

Instruction group from pretest to posttest on the dependent measures of the: (a)

forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d)

alternation test.

Research Question 3:

Were there significant group differences between the Play Practice and SFHP

Instruction group on posttest measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b)

forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test?

Hypothesis:

There were significant group differences between the Play Practice and SFHP

Instruction group on posttest measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b)

forehand attack test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test

Research Question Four

Were there significant pre-to-posttest differences within each group (PP, CI) for

the dependent measures of the: (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack

test, (c) serve test, and (d) alternation test?

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

22/255

8

Hypothesis:

There were significant pre-to-posttest differences within each group (PP, CI) for

the dependent measures of (a) forehand drive accuracy test, (b) forehand attack test,

(c) serve test, and (d) alternation test.

Significance of the Study

This study contributes to the literature of teaching sport in physical education in

three ways. First it validates play practice as an approach to teaching table tennis in

physical education by demonstrating its effectiveness compared to a SFHP approach

of teaching table tennis. The empirical data provides reliable evidence for examining

the effects of Play Practice instruction on teaching sport. Second, the study validates

four dependent variables for use in investigating table tennis game play, namely: (a)

forehand drive accuracy, (b) forehand attack, (c) forehand serve, and (d) forehand

alternation as a measure of the performance of playing table tennis. Third, the study

uses a series of Play Practice drills for table tennis that teachers can use in their

everyday teaching.

Limitations

The study has the following limitations:

1. The treatment of the study was only provided at one institute, the Sport,

Fitness, and Health Program. Accordingly, the institution characteristics may have

affected the research results.

2. Factors of the participants, the mood, clothes worn, and some social cultural

characteristics may have influenced the results of performance.

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

23/255

9

3. Factors of the environment of testing may have influenced the participants

performance, such as the floor and light of the gym, time of testing, and order of

taking the test may have affected performance.

4. Even though both instructors in the study were knowledgeable on the content

of the instruction, prior to the study they had little knowledge of Play Practice and

one of them had never taught it. Thus teacher effects may have occurred.

5. The experimental design used a comparison group rather than a true control

group. In the comparison group the participants received the traditional instructional

approach to teaching table tennis.

6. The study had no control of the activities that participants experienced

outside of the intervention. But the participants reported that they rarely played table

tennis outside of class during time frame of the intervention.

7. The study did not control for the type of feedback to participants but simply

allowed the instructors to provide appropriate feedback to the participants.

8. The instructors were not native English Speakers. Their languages may have

influenced the delivery of the intervention.

9. The lack of control of participants attendance (i.e. tardiness and absence)

may have affected the results of the study.

Delimitation

The study is delimited to:

1. The researchers expertise of the content of table tennis and Play Practice.

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

24/255

10

2. The quality and quantity of the facilities used in the study including the

spacious room of the gym, numerous table tennis paddles, balls, and tables in a good

condition.

3. The use of the specific dependent variables and the procedure of testing of

the variables that have been examined in the pilot study and other experiments.

4. Alan Launders agreement and identification of the Play Practice drills of

teaching table tennis applied in this study.

5. The relatively long instructional unit of the course in which the intervention

included 12 sessions.

6. Young college-aged adults elected to take a table tennis course in the

university.

Definition of Terms

ALT-PE: Academic learning time in physical education. The duration of time

the students are engaged with appropriate materials to their ability, with high rates of

success and low rates of error (Siedentop, Tousignant, & Parker, 1982).

Content knowledge: Knowledge of facts and concepts of a subject matter and

the relationships among them (Grossman, 1990).

Conventional approach: a method of teaching sport with an introduction of the

sport followed by little practice and normal game play for the rest of the class (Rink,

1992; Turner & Martinek, 1995).

Environment: the world surrounding the individual (Cooper, Heron, & Heward,

2007).

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

25/255

11

Feedback: Verbal statements provided to a performer regarding ones

performance (Rink, 2006).

Game: broadly defined as any form of playful competition whose outcome is

determined by physical skill, strategy and chance. However, game is usually meant

as an authentic competition setting in which rule bound goal driven activities take

place (Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der Mars, 2004).

Game Sense: the ability to use an understanding of the rules, or strategy of

tactics and of oneself to solve the problems posed by the game or by ones opponent

(Launder, 2001).

Intervention: a procedure, technique or strategy designed to modify an ongoing

process and a particular arrangement of environmental events that the researcher

manipulates during experimental study to check for effects on the dependent variable

(Copper et al., 2007).

Pedagogical Content Knowledge: the act of selecting content from ones

knowledge base for the purpose of teaching in a specific context (Ward et al., 2006).

Pedagogical Knowledge: general knowledge, conceptions, and skills related to

teaching (Grossman, 1990).

Play: an irreducible form of human behavior that provides meaning in life and

is thought to be a creative element in culture (Siedentop, 2003).

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

26/255

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

27/255

13

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter contains four sections. Initially the chapter begins with an

introduction of a problem that exists in teaching sports in physical education. The

second section reviews the curricular solutions that have been created to address the

problem. The third section presents Play Practice, a new teaching method of sports.

Finally, the chapter with an analysis of a pilot study which examined the effects of

Play Practice in teaching learners playing table tennis games.

The Problems in Teaching Sport

There is compelling evidence that shows that learners are not proficient in

activities that have been taught to them (Thorpe & Bunker, 1982; Thorpe et al., 1986;

Launder, 2001; Schmidt & Wrisberg, 2004; Siedentop, Hastie, & Van der Mars,

2004; Ward, 2006). As a consequence of poor proficiency, it is not difficult to

understand that students leave school with little knowledge of sport, poor

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

28/255

14

performance, and negative feelings about sport (Launder, 2001; Siedentop, et al.,

2004; Thorpe & Bunker, 1982; Thorpe et al., 1986; Solmon, 2003).

Teaching students sport in physical education setting is a complex process

which is influenced by a variety of factors. A review of current literature of teaching

physical education suggests that the factors influencing the problem can be

categorized in following five factors (a) teacher content knowledge, (b) multiple

activity curriculum, (c) technical only instruction, (d) teacher feedback and (e)

learner motivations and attitude towards playing sport.

The Role of Teacher Content Knowledge

The significant role of content knowledge as an important influence in the

teaching of physical education has become one of the central explanatory

mechanisms for teaching effectiveness research (Ayvazo, 2007; Siedentop, 2002;

2003; Ward, 2007). There is agreement that teachers without adequate content

knowledge do not efficiently affect learners achievement of playing sports (Ayvazo,

2007; Metzler, 2005; Revogno, 1995; Rink, 2006; Siedentop, 2002, 2003; Siedentop

& Eldar, 1989; Siedentop & Tannehille, 2000; Ward, 2007). A clear understanding of

the nature of a sport improves the teachers flexibility in teaching sport skills (Chen

& Ennis, 1995) and content knowledge also influences teachers instructional goals

(Metzler, 2005; Siedentop, 2002). On the other hand, a lack of content knowledge

has been shown to impact the implementation of different instructional models such

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

29/255

15

as Sport Education (Wallhead & Ntoumanis, 2004) and Teaching Games for

Understanding (Griffin, Oslin, Mitchell, 1997).

Scholars have repeatedly suggested that effective teachers in physical education

need to be competent in the subject matter taught to students (Avayzo, 2007; Chen &

Ennis, 1995; Metzler, 2005; Schempp, Manross, Tan, & Fincher, 1998; Ward,

Ayvazo, & Stuhr, 2006). Ayvazo (2007) systematically investigated two elementary

teachers delivering two instructional units identified as strong and weak and who

aimed to teach two different sports. Based on the measurement of a series of

variables about teacher behaviors such as instructional cues and task modification,

Ayvazo (2007) concluded that more depth content knowledge and mature

pedagogical content knowledge were consistently found in strong instructional units.

Meanwhile it is critical for teachers to acquire proficient content knowledge of the

sport so that they could develop solid pedagogical content knowledge, to improve

teaching different types of sports (Ayvazo, 2007).

Metzler (2005) highlighted the close connection between a teachers content

knowledge and the effects of teaching sport while discussing different instructional

models in physical education. He stressed the necessity of content knowledge in

various teaching strategies, and clear but narrow instructional goals in effective

teaching sports and other physical activities. According to Metzlers description, a

teacher can never have too much content knowledge to teach sports and physical

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

30/255

16

activities and developing such content is a lifelong process for teachers in the

success of teaching physical education (p.74).

Hastie and Vlaisavljevic (1999) reported that teachers viewed as content

experts hold learners accountable for their performance and presented more learning

tasks with variation. These teachers also frequently refined the learning tasks

according to learners performance and development which enhanced the learning

outcome of the subject matter. Hastie and Vlaisavljevic (1999) found that content

expert teachers extended learning tasks fully understanding the class ecology in their

teaching.

Ward et al. (2006) argued that physical education teachers not only should learn

content knowledge through experiences (such as playing and observing) but also

must develop their content knowledge. Ward et al. (2006) provided a comprehensive

definition of content knowledge in which the knowledge was divided into four

domains: knowledge of the rules and etiquette, technique and tactics, skill

discrimination, and progressions of a sport or physical activity.

Content progression is the planned sequence of learning tasks and practice

drills in lesson plans, and reflects the teachers belief and understanding of how and

when to move students fro one task to the next task, drill, or section (Rink, 1985).

Content progression was the central role of teaching (Revogno, 1995). Teacher

content knowledge directly determined the appropriateness of content progression

because teachers should decide how to gradually introduce the content while

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

31/255

17

planning the lesson (Metzler, 2005). Content progression meant the planned

sequence of learning tasks and practice drills in lesson plans and reflects the

teachers belief and understanding of how and when to move students from one task

to the next task, drill, or section (Rink, 1985). Researchers have shown that

providing appropriate progression for learners was helpful in the skills studied in

physical education (French, Rink, Rikard, Mays, Lynn, & Werner, 1991; Rink,

1985).

Rink (1997) suggested that content progression includes five learning tasks:

(1). Informing: the initial task in a ne

w skill progression

(2). Refining: a task that promotes improved quality of performance

(3). Extending: a task that is slightly more complex or difficult than the

preceding task

(4). Applying: a task to be performed to a stated performance criterion, or

performed against an opponent or standard.

(5). Repeating: any previous task that is repeated for review or increased

proficiency.

Hebert (1995) compared the effects of three content progression strategies: part

training, simplification, and criterion on teaching college tennis classes. The results

of the study indicated that students in two content progression conditions: part

training and simplification demonstrated higher scores on self-efficacy, and

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

32/255

18

motivation scores hypothesized as mechanisms underlying the benefits of

progressions. Students practiced in the simplification condition also had higher

post-test scores and performed better during game play. The improvement of

students performance demonstrates the essential function of content progression in

teaching sports.

French et al. (1991) established a relationship between different types of task

extension and student achievement by producing an experimental study. In this study

53 students from a private school who were randomly assigned to three practice

groups and received three interventions: no-progression instruction, instruction with

a fixed progression, and no instruction. Two volleyball techniques were selected as

the dependent variables for measures of achievement. The results of the study

demonstrated the similar conclusion that was produced in Heberts (1995) study that

practicing more simple variations of the task resulted in greater change from pretest

to posttest. The finding also suggested that some types of extension might be more

beneficial to student learning.

Rovegno (1995) reported that the typical decisions that teachers made on

content progression included two steps: (a) first presenting information about the

biomechanical characteristics of body position of a technique and (b) organizing

students to play games. Rovegnos (1995) study tied the teachers previous

experiences of learning and playing volleyball to their decisions on teaching children

the sport and found that the teachers content knowledge was consistent to their

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

33/255

19

pedagogical content knowledge, which was reflected, in this case, on their decision

of content progression.

Doutis (1997) emphasized the significance of task selection and content

progression as central to physical education teachers content and pedagogical

content knowledge. The author found that teachers with a full understanding of

content chose mostly different tasks to teach similar content when they have

students in different grade levels. Content also helped teachers effectively vary the

task characteristis by arranging the content to fit individual needs and thus

improving the quality of performance (Doutis, 1997).

The Role of the Multiple-Activity Curriculum

The multiple activity curriculum affects the effect of teaching sport in school

physical education (Launder, 2001; Metzler, 2005; Siedentop, 2003; Taylor &

Chiogioji, 1987; Ward, 1999). For instance, the multiple activity curriculum has

been described as a situation in which teachers taught learners a wide variety of

activities in short instructional units typically ranging from five to eight days on

each (Siedentop, 2003). Metzler (2005) noted that the multiple activity curriculum

determined the content coverage of instructional units which dramatically influenced

the process and product of the physical education class. The inevitable result of

using multiple activity curriculum to teach sports was a deficiency of mastery and

understanding of the subject matter (Metzler, 2005; Siedentop, 2003). On the surface,

learners seem to have a great opportunity to participate in a variety of sport events in

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

34/255

20

multiple activity curriculum. In reality, however the learning achievements fall far

shot of expectation on the effective teaching of sports in physical education.

Siedentop, Hastie, & Van Der Mars (2004) describe multiple activity

curriculum as providing learners with a one inch deep and ten miles wide learning

experience. They were critical that most learners were neither able to have time to

understand the rules and strategies of the sport, nor were students able to gain the

skills to play the game before the curriculum content was changed. With the limited

time available for the learning, learners could only scratch the surface of the

subject matter content, but never entered the over-learned level, which was the

phase becoming fluent in most academic subject matter areas (Brophy & Good,

1986). According to Siedentop et al. (2004), the Sport Education Model was

partially designed to avoid the disadvantageous condition of multiple activity

curriculum by teaching sport seasons with the instructional unit at least three times

longer (i. e. 20 22 classes) than the traditional one (p.5).

Interestingly, the psychomotor outcomes are not the only domains suffering in

the multiple activity curriculum. Taylor and Chiogioji (1987) noted that in the

multiple activity curriculum, many important learning goals, other than the mastery

of psychomotor skills were also very difficult to attain. The frequent change in the

multiple activity curriculum deprive students of the opportunities to explore benefits

of participation in playing sports such as fitness, self-esteem, and social skill

development. Based on the analysis from Siedentop et al. (2004) and Thorpe et al.

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

35/255

21

(1986), the short instructional units for learning playing sports has been viewed as

the core reason that prohibited teachers in providing sufficient practice time

necessary for learning in the multiple-activity curriculum (Siedentop, 2003).

Launder (2001) noted that short instructional units produced by multiple

activity curriculum strongly limited the engaged time for understanding the content

such as the sport rules and tactical strategies that were critical for effective play.

More important, the unavailability of enough practice time on the sport techniques

impaired the possibility to be competent and efficient while performing the sport

skill. He claimed, it is vital that children practice persistently if they are to make

progress and the practice shall be purposefully designed with positive environment

(Launder, 2001, p. 71).

Agreeing with Launders point, Wein (2001) stressed that it was a common

phenomenon that learners especially children usually lack readiness to the new

motor skills or conceptual awareness when they practice sports. This kind of

unprepared condition could easily result in a high failure rate of successful

performance and a high dropout rate in participation. In the multiple-activity

curriculum, students must move from drills to drills very quickly so that they can

accomplish the learning tasks of each instructional unit. Learners, especially young

and those with low skilled, simply are not prepared to digest the content being

taught.

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

36/255

22

The empirical evidence from teacher effectiveness studies highlights the

importance of successful trials as a result of extended engagement in activity. For

instance, Silverman (1985) investigated the relationship of student time engagement

and practice trials to their achievement on a surviving swimming skill. The results

verified the assumption that practice trial variable could effectively predict the

learning achievement. Silverman (1985) found that the appropriate level of the task

practice seemed to be a more potent variable relating to achievement. Similarly,

Buck, Harrison, & Bryces (1991) analyzed the connection of trials of psychomotor

skills and learning achievement in a college volleyball class. The results of their

study enhanced the findings in Silvermans (1985) study in which the total correct

trials were correlated with student achievement. In summary, scholars have argued

that fewer activities covered in greater depth led to better learning outcomes than did

more activities with shorter instructional units (Ward et al., 1999; Wein, 2001).

The Role of Technical Only Approach

The technical only teaching approach also results in poor performance of

students learning sports in physical education (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; Bunker et

al., 1986; Griffin et al., 1997; Holt, Ward, & Wallhead, 2006; Launder, 2001;

Mitchell & Oslin, 1999; Mitchell et al., 2006; Rink et al., 1996; Turner & Martinek,

1995). Rink et al. (1996) defined the traditional approach as an instructional method

that includes introduction and drills of techniques in very simple conditions

followed by game play. Using volleyball as an example, traditionally volleyball

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

37/255

23

would be taught in a combination of simple introduction and exercise of techniques

such as serve, set, and spike and a long unit of game play for the rest of the class.

Based on Bunker and Thorpes (1982) statement the traditional approach to games

teaching was technical focusing on teaching skills in answering the question How

is this skill performed? Yet researchers criticized that even though skill execution

was critical to game performance, deciding what to do in game situations was just as

important as the execution of the skill (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986).

Researchers also indicated that students who learned the sport with technical

instructional are frequently unable to make appropriate decisions so that effective

play and participation of the sport are often lacking in physical education course

(Bunker, Thorpe, & Almond, 1984; Bunker & Thorpe, 1986; Mitchell, Oslin, &

Griffin, 1997; Mitchell et al., 2006). Decision-making connected to the question

what to do, which involves functions such as selective attentions, perception, and

anticipation is critical toe effective performance. Ye the technical only teaching

approach ignored the importance of making right decisions in effective game play,

focusing solely on the technique achievement, which led to the poor performance of

playing sports.

Illustrating this outcome, Romar (1994) examined a middle school teacher who

taught a basketball unit with the primary goal for students to participate in a

well-played game. However at the end of the unit games were poorly played and the

teacher was disappointed with the students learning achievement. Later Romar

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

38/255

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

39/255

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

40/255

26

Ayvazo, Ward, Cohen, Sturh, Zhang, 2006). In summary, the learning achievements

of playing sports ought to rely heavily on the type and content of the feedback

provided by the instructor.

The Role of the Learners Motivation and Attitude

Attitudes influence peoples lives. Attitudes towards physical education and

sports must be important factors determining if individuals choose to engage in the

activity (Solmon, 2003). Attitudes can be positive or negative. Students with a

positive attitude about the content in physical education are more likely to attend to

the teaching and devote efforts, and ultimately achieve more than do students who

bring negative attitudes to the subject matter.

Ennis (1996) showed that high school students who were interviewed in her

study rarely perceived the value of learning physical activities and sports in their

school. They did not know the reason why they had to learn physical education and

why physical education should be required in the school curriculum. With the

evidence provided by different researchers, it was not difficult to understand the

poor performance of learning sports when students viewed physical education as

trivial subjects. Under this condition, teachers should use different strategies to

motivate students and change their negative attitude towards physical education and

sports.

Research has demonstrated that an individuals motivation varies according to

changes in perceptions of competence and people tended to feel more competent if

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

41/255

27

they were motivated (Deci, 1996; Duda, 1992; Woods, 2007). Competent sport

performance in students thus results from appropriate motivation from teachers

(Duda, 1992; Woods, 2007). Teachers did need to provide effective instruction to

enhance students learning so that they can achieve success and motivation while

playing sport games. Launder (2001) highlighted the claim that efficient instruction

of teaching sports and physical activities ought to provide plenty of practice, which

can produce a high successful rate. Learners are motivated if they achieve a

successful performance, and will continue to challenge and improve their play. This

phenomenon is called success does indeed breed success (Launder, 2001).

Another indicator of motivation is the enjoyment of participation. Teachers

should create a positive and enjoyable learning environment so that students can feel

motivated through participation of the activities. Research showed that poor

performance of playing sports was related to enjoyment (Duda, 1992 & Woods,

2007). For example, students who experienced the blocked and repetitive drills tend

to feel bored and tedious toward the learning process. Moreover, it has been found

that students who undergo the same practice without any modification in the same

sports and activities semester after semester could lead to negative experiences of

playing sports (Carlson & Hastie, 1997).

Implications

The first part of this chapter identified five explanations as to why sport is often

taught poorly in school settings: (a) teacher content knowledge, (b) multiple activity

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

42/255

28

curricula, (c) technique-only instruction, (d) poor teacher feedback, and (e) lack of

learner attitude and motivation. These five explanations significantly impacted the

learning outcomes of playing sports and must serve as the assumptions for any

curriculum and instruction designed to enhance learners performance.

Because of the strong influence content knowledge has on teaching sport,

increasing teacher content knowledge ought to be the most important goal in

improving students poor sport/game performance. Reflecting on pre-service

teachers and their CK, Siedentop (2002) argued that teacher education programs

must address the issue of increasing teachers content knowledge. Similarly,

in-service teachers must be assisted in acquiring more content knowledge through

professional development activities (Siedentop 2007; Ward, 2007).

The removal of the multiple activity curriculum from school physical education,

ought to be a second goal of efforts to improve instruction. In the process of

teaching sports in physical education, educators must avoid the one-inch-deep but

ten-miles-wide effects (Siedentop et al, 2004) that often occurred in this curriculum

(Taylor & Chiogioji 1987). Longer instructional units are necessary for students to

master the techniques and tactics of a sport.

Focusing on the technique-only approach has been shown to be problematic,

and in the case of a curriculum focused on teaching sports, especially ball game

sport, must add tactical knowledge to the instruction. Lees (2004) study provided

strong empirical evidence on the effects of teaching tactical strategies in learning

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

43/255

29

sports. Young learners not only significantly improved their game performance on

playing tag rugby but also transferred the learning achievement from practice to

game scrimmage through tactic focused instruction. In addition, several papers and

books from researchers such as Bunker and Thorpe (1982), Mitchell et al., (2006),

and Siedentop et al., (2004), have argued that making appropriate decisions related

to the game play should be an essential component of teaching sports. Students must

gain relevant knowledge of tactics and rules of a sport so that they can understand

what they need to do and what they need to avoid in the game situation. As

Siedentop et al. (2004) noted competence is more than performing isolated

technique and anticipation and movement are what tactics are all about (p. 121).

Appropriate teacher feedback is the fourth goal of improvements in the

teaching of sports, and is closely connected to the content knowledge

recommendation (Cavallini, 2006; Cohen, 2007; Ward et al., 2006). The provision of

feedback is ties to the level of a teachers content knowledge (Cohen, 2007).

Appropriate teacher feedback can offer learners information about their performance

so that they understand what they have learned and still need to improve (Cohen,

2007; Siedentop & Tannehille, 2000). When learning new motor skills, providing

specific and corrective feedback serves as an essential factor of an effective

instructional approach (Cohen, 2007; Robinson, 2007; Stroot, 1990).

Finally, a learners motivation and attitude ought to be another emphasis of the

teaching of sport. A good learning attitude and appropriate motivation are essential

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

44/255

30

for the success of teaching sport games no matter what curriculum is implemented.

In a literature review of the Teaching Games for Understanding and the Tactical

Game Models, Oslin and Mitchell (2005) reviewed game-centered approaches

with traditional instruction and indicated that what makes tactical approach superior

to the technical model is (a) children are motivated by games (b) games promote

development of decision making, and (c) the transfer of learning from one sport to

others. In addition, Wallhead and OSullivan (2005) in their review concluded that

the structure and components of Sport Education Model promoted learners personal

and social development by assigning students responsibility, which motivates every

participant to become an enthusiastic sport person.

Curriculum Models Proposed for the Teaching of Sports in Physical Education

Three curricular approaches have been proposed as alternatives to traditional

multiple-activity and technique-focused approaches to sport: the Teaching Games

for Understanding or TGfU (Bucker & Thorpe, 1982; Bunker, Thorpe, & Almond,

1986),the Tactical Game Model or TGM (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin, 1997), and

Sport Education (Siedentop, Hastie, Van der Mars, 2004). Researchers and physical

educators have widely investigated and discussed these curricular approaches in the

field of teaching physical education (Dyson, Griffin, & Hastie, 2004; Oslin &

Mitchell, 2005; Wallhead & O Sullivan, 2005).

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

45/255

31

The Teaching Games for Understanding, TGFU

The following section provides an overview of the literature of three instruction

approaches, which contain brief background and history, conceptual rationale,

instructional model, research results, and critiques to the model.

Background. The TGFU instruction is the oldest proposal of sport-approached

instruction. It originated from faculty at Loughborough University in England

during the early 1960s (Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1986). Bunker and Thorpe

(1982) formally conceptualized the idea of the TGFU. They initially brought up the

TGFU as a game approach in their paper:A Model for the Teaching of Games in the

Secondary Schools (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). In this paper, Bunker and Thorpe

(1982) posited that students learning outcome in playing sports was problematic, in

that students demonstrated three negative characteristics: (a) a large percentage

achieved little success in their game play performance, (b) the majority knew very

little about games, and (c) many displayed poor decision-making capacities. These

learning outcome features were also later identified in the U.S. and have evoked

wide debates about the appropriate instructional goals of teaching games in both

England and the U. S (French et al., 1996; Griffin, et al., 1997; McMorris, 1998;

Rink et al., 1996; Turner, 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1995, 1999; Nevett, 2001).

After identifying the problematic issues of students poor performance in

playing sports, Bunker and his colleagues reflected on the connection between

teaching and learning occurring in physical education classes and attributed the

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

46/255

32

problem to the traditional approach of teaching sports, usually described as

technical instruction (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Bunker et al., 1986; Metzler, 2005;

Rink et al., 1996). Several researchers (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Bunker et al.,

1986) were critical of the traditional focus on teaching techniques in highly

structured lessons, which usually resulted in unsatisfactory learning results of

playing sports (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Turner & Martinek, 1995). The proponents

of the TGFU believed that teachers ought to meliorate the students learning through

changing their instructional approach (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Thorpe et al., 1986).

Conceptual rationale of the TGFU. Two rationales have been proposed for the

TGFU model: the decision-making and transfer of learning. The first rationale for

Bunker and Thorpes belief in Teaching Games for Understanding derived from the

consideration that children must be able to make decisions if they want to become

competent players (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). Making decisions has been viewed as

the tactical component of playing sport, associated with the cognitive learning

domain (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982, Maulden & Redfern, 1981; Griffin et al., 1997;

Turner & Martinek, 1999; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002). Several examples provided by

the physical educators help people make sense of the necessity for making right

decisions while playing sports.

Bunker and Thorpe (1982) proposed that, in invasion games, it is necessary for

players to consider creating or denying space. Teachers need to know when and

where to deliver the techniques of the sport, such as dribbling or passing in soccer,

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

47/255

33

so that they can attend more advantages of scoring. Students need to make decisions

on how to support teammates play to keep the maneuverability and offensive

position of play (Lee, 2004). In addition to these situations, decision-making must

also take place to select strategies and techniques to deal with the game scenario in

order to anticipate the opponents play.

These analyses showed that the ideal competency of playing sports must be a

combination of making appropriate decisions and executing skillful ability to

perform the techniques. Researchers found that the ability to make appropriate

decisions differentiated experienced players from novice players (Maulden &

Redfern, 1981). Expert players develop their cognitive understanding of the game

play of a sport throughout the process of practice and game play (Siedentop, 2003).

Players must be able to make correct and reasonable decisions throughout the game

play, thus the TGFU was designed to facilitate learners understanding of tactical

complexities of the game, which is an important component of game play (Bunker &

Thorpe, 1982, Oslin & Mitchell, 2005; Siedentop et al., 2004; Kirk & MacPhail,

2002).

In addition, Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argued that decision-making can be

transferred from one sport to similar others. The effective transfer of learning relies

on the assumption of similarity of tactical problems among similar sports. Bunker,

Thorpe and Almond (1994) first organized the common sports in the physical

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

48/255

34

education curriculum and classified them into four categories: net/wall, invasion,

skill/field, and target sports (Bunker et al., 1986).

Net/wall sports Invasion sports Strike / field sports Target sports

Net

Badminton

Tennis

Table tennis

Pickleball

Volleyball

Wall

Racquetball

Basketball

Netball

Team handball

Water polo

Soccer

Hockey

Lacrosse

Rugby

Baseball

Softball

Rounders

Cricket

Kickball

Golf

Croquet

Bowling

Lawn bowing

Pool

Billiards

Snooker

Table 2.1: Sports and Games Classifications

Note. Adopted from Reflecting on themes: A games classification, by R. Thorpe,

D. Bunker, & L. Almond, 1986, Rethinking games teaching(Loughborough

University), 71-72.

Table 2.1 illustrates different sports organized for the purpose to foster transfer

of learning. Based on the classification of the sports, researchers have defined the

transfer of learning as the gain or the loss of a persons proficiency on one task as a

result of previous practice or experience on another task (Schimidt & Wrisberg,

2004). The definition stresses the reality of the generalization of tactical strategies

between similar sports. For instance, a passing strategy defined in the 2v1 offensive

situation while playing soccer can be transplanted to basketball or ice hockey. In this

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

49/255

35

example, even though players use different techniques (i.e. kick the soccer ball and

throw the basket ball), they all try to accomplish the same strategy to pass the ball to

a teammate for the offensive play.

Empirical research available for transfer of learning produced positive results in

supporting the rationale of transfer of learning emphasized in Teaching Games for

Understanding. Mitchell and Oslin (1999) examined learning related to making

tactical decisions and found that high school students were able to transfer their

decision-making from badminton to pickle ball game play after making obvious

improvement on badminton game play. Martin (2004) taught sixth grade learners

two invasion games, Ultimate Frisbee and Team Handball, and studied the transfer

of decision-making from one to another. The data collected on decision-making

demonstrated the same outcome, that students transferred their knowledge and

ability to make appropriate decisions from Frisbee to Team Handball. All these

findings supported the Bunker, Thorpe and Almond assumption, in which sports in

the same category shared the concept of creating space for the purpose of setting up

the attack or scoring.

The Model of Teaching Games for Understanding. Bunker and Thorpe created a

model that presented the key ideas of Teaching Games for Understanding (Bunker &

Thorpe, 1982). The TGFU model includes six procedures, which show step-by-step

how teachers help the learner master sport performance or skills. Unlike the

traditional approach of teaching sports, the Teaching Games for Understanding

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

50/255

36

model presents games first to learners and aims to enhance the understanding of the

sport before the introduction of techniques. Bunker and Thorpe specified the

instructional units in the following six steps (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982):

Step one - The Game: the class instruction unit begins with various games

modified to facilitate learning, while the formal adult version of a sport game still

presents a long-term goal of teaching. Learners are able to know the sport in an

authentic context at the beginning stage of learning.

Step two - Game Appreciation: learners need to know the rules of sports and be

aware of how the rules shape the sports game play. It is necessary for learners to

understand the relationship between the sports rules and the game play format so

that they can appreciate the play.

Step three - Tactical Awareness: after some involvement with game play and

awareness of sport rules and concepts, learners need to consider general principles

across all sport game play that constructs the basic tactics of playing sports.

Step four - Decision-making: learners need to figure out what to do and how to

do it during actual game play. Based on the awareness of tactics of a given sport,

learners are able to choose appropriate responses toward the what-to-do situation.

Step five - Skill Execution: this should be the product of required performance

seen in the context of the learner. Skill execution is always seen in the context of the

learner and the game.

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

51/255

37

Step six - Performance: this is the final observed outcome of the previous two

steps (Decision-Making and Skill Execution) measured against criteria that are

independent of the learner. According to Bunker and Thorpe (1982), this is the point

at which students are classified as good or poor players of the sport.

One of the most manifest features of the model is that the TGfU model places

understanding the sport as the primary goal of teaching sports in physical education.

By following the model, students are supposed to achieve three outcomes: game

appreciation, tactical awareness, and making appropriate decisions before getting

involved in learning and practicing techniques. The emphasis on game appreciation

and decision-making highlights the key issues of the TGfU model: that effective

sports instruction must be able to facilitate students understanding of game format

and sport procedure (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). This understanding priority feature

influences the development of other instructional approaches such as Tactical Game

Model (Griffin et al., 1997) and Sport Education (Siedentop, 1994; Siedentop et al.,

2004).

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

52/255

38

Figure 2.1: The Teaching Games for Understanding model (from Bunker & Thorpe,

1982).

Tactical Game Model TGM

After the TGFU instruction was introduced, three American scholars, Griffin,

Mitchell, and Oslin created another game approach based on its framework, called

the Tactical Game Approach or TGM (Griffin et al., 1997). The TGM has been

widely accepted in school physical education (Metzler, 2005).

(1) Game

(2) Game

Appreciation

(3) Tactical

Awareness

(4) Making Appropriate

Decisions

(6) Performance

(5) Skill

Execution

Learner

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

53/255

39

Background. The Tactical Game Model was developed approximately fifteen

years later and has been viewed as a modified version of the TGFU (Griffin et al.,

1997; Metzler, 2005; Oslin & Mitchell, 2005). The proponents of the TGM agree

that the primary objectives to teaching sports in physical education are importing

knowledge of the rules of the game, demonstrating tactics of the sport, and training

students to make appropriate decisions. Instruction must emphasize that tactical

awareness so that players are able to understand what to play and how to play in

game situation (Holt et al., 2002; Metzler, 2005). Except for the similarity on the

emphasis of tactical learning, the TGM is also a student-centered approach of

teaching sport games (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002) because the instruction model begins

and ends with the learners (Griffin et al., 1997). During teaching the teachers role is

more a facilitator. For example, the TGM requires that teachers must question

students after the first part of the teaching and foster students to be aware of the

tactical problem. In both instructional approaches, learners always study in a

problem-solving context.

Even though the Tactical Game Model is more similar than different from the

TGFU model, there are two important differences. First, the TGM includes more

concrete and practical content and pedagogy of teaching sports. The TGM develops

tactical knowledge of the sport into multiple levels (Mitchell et al., 2006). Learners

start their learning from solving basic and simple tactical problem but gradually

move to more complex ones. In contrast, the TGFU only brought up the concept of

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

54/255

40

tactical awareness in general and did not map out the content specifically (i. e.

tactical strategies). As a result, the TGM is more explicit for teachers to use.

Not only is the content more concrete in the TGM, but also the pedagogy is

clearly developed. The TGM requires teachers to instruct in a game practice

game procedure (Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2006). Specifically, learners

start their learning from a modified game in which they need to be aware of and

solve a tactical problem. Then they will practice techniques, followed by a game

play to continue solving the tactical problem of the sport. This explicit and detailed

development of pedagogy is beneficial for teachers to implement the instructional

approach to the class and help people differ it from the TGFU.

Second, the TGM contains the practice and instruction of techniques, which

result in a manifest improvement in tactical instructional approaches. The designers

of the TGFU (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Thorpe, Bunker, & Almond, 1986) believed

that the goal of teaching sports in physical education is to understand rather than

perform them. They argued that learning techniques is not necessary for effective

game play of sports since learners can still achieve good games without

skills/techniques (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Thorpe et al., 1986). Yet according to

Mitchell et al. (2006) techniques are essential components of every lesson. The

inclusion of techniques indicates that the TGM is not a pure tactical only

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

55/255

41

instruction but a (tactical and technical) integrate approach (Allison & Thorpe,

1997; French et al., 1996; Holt et al., 2002; Rink et al., 1996; Turner & Martinek,

1995, 1999).

The conceptual rationale of the TGM. The conceptual rationale of the TGM

includes two aspects: motivation and game centered instruction. By using the

Game-Practice-Game procedure during teaching, the TGM highlights the status of

game in appropriately introducing tactical knowledge and attracting participants to

get involved in learning.

The TGM gives prominence to a game format of teaching in order to

effectively motivate learning. Mitchell et al. (2006) found a lack of interest and

excitement in traditional instructional approach focused on technique learning and

stated that Tactical Game Model provides an excited alternative through which

students can learn to play games (p. 9). Skilled learners feel bored with the tedium

of isolated practice with techniques. For less skilled learners, the game play

probably only means some aimless organization of some techniques (Mitchell et al.,

2006).

The effect of motivation is reflected in two aspects. At the beginning of the

class, the TGM uses a modified game to encourage students participation and

appreciation of the sport and its cognitive component of play (Griffin, et al., 1997;

Mitchell et al., 2006). Then the result of tactical awareness serves as the motivation

of learning techniques. The realization of the difference between what to play how to

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

56/255

42

play raises the need to improve the technical performance of a sport. Students realize

that only having the knowledge of what to do does not directly lead to a successful

doing or winning.

A game centered model means that games play a primary and central role in

teaching sports. The TGM defines that games can be centered conditions other

than ultimate outcomes of physical education lessons and ought to be used to

address the effects of teaching sports. Traditionally, games are only introduced when

students accomplish the learning of techniques (Holt et al., 2002; Rink et al., 1996).

The instruction always follows this inevitable and pre-determined procedure to

introduce the sport an approach which makes games look like an accessory

attachment to techniques (Turner & Martinek, 1999). By contrast, the emphasis of

the game format used in the TGM (and the TGFU) guides teachers to re-consider the

function and meaning of game play in learning sports. Playing a game is not only a

product of learning sports, but also a vehicle for addressing the learning goal. Later,

the game-centered instructional format significantly influenced the structure of many

other teaching approaches such as Tactical Game Model (Griffin et al., 1997; Oslin

& Mitchell, 2004), Sport Education (Siedentop, 1994; Siedentop et al., 2004) and

Play Practice (Launder, 2001).

The model of Tactical Game Approach. The model of Tactical Game Approach

is similar with the TGFU. In this model, three components modified from the six

instructional steps are used to introduce the sport content (See Figure 2. 2). The key

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

57/255

43

features of the TGM can be summarized as three sections: (a) using small-sided

game to present a specific tactical problem which sets up a learning environment to

explore learners tactical awareness, (b) using questions to provoke critical thinking

of solutions to the problem, (c) then the practice of techniques aimed to contribute to

the solution of the tactical problem. A good example can be found in a tennis

instruction scenario:

The instruction of a tennis class may start from a half court game in which

students are expected to realize that (a) they need to drop the ball short (in front of

the net) and long (close to baseline) to move the opponent and (b) they shall practice

theirstrokes so that they can gain some control of the ball (Mitchell et al., 2006).

Figure 2.2. The Tactical Game Model (from Teaching sport concepts and skills,

Mitchell et al., 2006).

Game form

Tactical awareness Technique execution

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

58/255

44

Teachers use small-sided games to explore the tactical awareness so that

students can appreciate the game play of the sport. Then the gap between knowing

the sport strategies (what to do) and performing them (how to do) inspires the

learners desire to practice the techniques of the sport.

The empirical evidence for the TGFU model and TGM. The TGfU and TGM

have attracted many researchers attentions (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; Chandler &

Mitchell, 1990; Mitchell, French, Werner, Rink, Taylor, Hussey, & Jones, 1996;

Griffin & Oslin, 1995; Turner & Martinek, 1995 & 1999). These two game

approaches have been discussed interchangeably in the literature. Due to the

similarities between the TGFU and TGM, researchers have often reviewed both

approaches together and most times these two approaches are emerged into one

(Holt, et al., 2006; Rink et al., 1996; Harvey, 2006).

Research on tactical approaches is focused on the comparison between the

effects of technical and tactical approaches in teaching sports. The research covers a

wide range of settings. Researchers operated their research in different teaching

conditions, including elementary, secondary, and college PE course across different

sports, such as badminton, basketball, hockey, soccer, tennis, and volleyball (Allison

& Thorpe, 1997; Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 1997; Turner & Martiniek, 1995,

1999). Three domains of learning achievement (psychomotor, cognitive, and

affective) were measured but the study primarily concentrated on psychomotor and

cognitive learning outcomes (Turner & Martinek, 1995, 1999; French et al., 1996).

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

59/255

45

A series of studies have compared the two approaches on teaching sport while

most of them (French et al., 1996a; French et al., 1996b; McPherson & Thomas,

1989; Turner & Martinek, 1995) have indicated that there was no significant

difference on improving students technique performance. An exception of the

research results came from Turner and Martineks (1999) study in which the TGFU

approach better prepared students for effective performance in passing, shooting,

and dribbling in game play than the technique instruction. Taken collectively, the

results of the research on the TGFU and the TGM tend to support the judgment that

these approaches have not been shown to be superior to the traditional way to

teaching sport techniques (Holt et al., 2006; Rink et al., 1996; Silverman, 1997).

From the perspective of cognitive learning outcome of sport, many studies

produced positive results on the assessment of declarative and procedural knowledge

(Allison & Thorpe, 1997; McPherson, 1994). It has been reported in these studies

that learners in the tactical group scored higher on the assessment of knowing rules,

skills, and players positions and that they were able to make better decisions during

game play even though they still had poor skill executions. However, the opposite

result emerged from some studies suggests researchers that it is difficult to confirm

that the TGM and TGFU are superior methods for improving the cognitive learning.

For instance, French and her colleagues (1996a & 1996b) used a paper pencil test

and found out that students significantly improved the score on badminton rules and

skill concepts in tactical and technical instructional conditions. In addition, the data

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

60/255

46

collected through the point interview also demonstrated that students did not

significantly make better decisions among three different teaching conditions

(technical, tactical, and combined). Same results were also found in studies from

Griffin et al., (1995), Lawton (1989), and Turner & Martinek (1992). Considering

that the studies revealed no significant differences learning results on cognitive

achievement, researchers still cannot confirm that the TGFU is a better way to

improve students knowledge and cognition achievement (Holt et al., 2006; Rink et

al., 1996).

A Critique of TGFU and TGM

First, the TFGU and the TGM are difficult for teachers to master because of

their demand for content knowledge, which is connected to the use of critical

questions to provoke the tactical awareness and the alignment of technique and

tactics in teaching the sport. Both the TFGU model and the TGM ask teachers to

question learners after the introduction of modified games (Mitchell et al., 2006).

Teachers must be able to effectively facilitate them to identify the tactical problems

and find the solutions after the first game play. The quality of the questions is critical

to ensure the instructional goals such as problem solving and tactical awareness

(Dyson, Griffin, & Hastie, 2004). Teachers have to know the tactics well so that they

can appropriately question the students. Accordingly, the content and the timing of

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

61/255

47

questions provided to the students must be closely related to the content knowledge

level of the teacher, variable which significantly determines the success of the

teaching.

Second, the TGFU and TGM Approach use the traditional way to address

techniques, which potentially weakens the learning achievement of playing sports.

Kirk and McPhail (2002) pointed out that neither approach has shown a difference

from the traditional approach while introducing the techniques. Techniques in both

methods have been taught by using drills common to the technical approach (Griffin

et al., 1997; Mitchell, et al., 2006).

For instance, a typical drill for the volleyball practice of forearm passing in

level one lesson two (Mitchell et al., 2006) can be Forearm pass triad, every player

performs two or three trials before rotate Focus on medium body posture and

pointing the belly button to the target (p.214).Another drill of tennis practice of

backhand ground stroke at lesson eight, (tactical) level one: describes Crosscourt

and line practice one player feeds to other players forehand in the corner of the

baseline and other player hits crosscourt switch roles and repeat task hitting down

the line (p 304). From these two examples, we can see that the techniques are

presented in a decontextualized way. The setup of the practice shows a clearly

decontextualized condition. There seems to be no difference between the TGFU and

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

62/255

48

traditional approach while introducing techniques. Yet it is clear that, in order to

foster the transfer of learning, learners need to know and practice the techniques in a

game context.

The final critique of the TGM comes from the presentation of the game play at

beginning of the instruction aimed to address the tactical problems. The success of

addressing the tactical issue by using game play relies on an assumption that players

must be able to focus on the tactics. However, without the mastery of the techniques

necessary for delivery of tactics, learners, especially low skilled learners, can hardly

concentrate on what to play but think about how to play it. Using ice-hockey as an

example it is difficult to address the tactics about what to play without a degree of

fluency in the techniques of skating on the ice and waving the hockey club. The

same issue can occur in playing tennis: when teaching children a basic strategy in

net sport (i. e. space creation), what really happens in a students mind is the

decision about how to contact the ball so that they can get it across the net. Rink et

al. (1996) stated that it is always necessary to introduce the techniques first so that

teachers can develop childrens tactics. Children could not focus on more than one

issue when they are at preoperational stage of learning.

The Sport Education Model

Sport Education is a PE curriculum model which connects the sport culture to

sport taught in physical education (Siedentop, 1994). The ultimate goal of the Sport

Education is to cultivate competent, literate, and enthusiastic sport persons so they

8/4/2019 Zhang Peng

63/255

49

can participate in the sports and enhance the sport culture (Siedentop, Hastie, & van

der Mars, 2004, p. 15). Siedentop (1994) created the Sport Education curriculum

model based on his research interest in play education and defining the content

knowledge in physical education (Wallhead & OSullivan, 2005). Siedentop

believed that cultures of playing (i.e., sports) could bring collaborative social life to

children and youth, a life-enhancing outcome for physically active, playful human

beings, and a strong justification for physical education as a legitimate school

subject (Siedentop, 1968).

Conceptual rationale of the Sport Education Model. The Sport Education was

created to enrich the experience of playing sports (Siedentop, 1994, 1998; Siedentop

et al., 2004; Wallhead & O Sullivan, 2005; Hastie, 2003). Sport Education extends

beyond the technical content of playing sports by emphasizing affiliation, formal

competition, record keeping, festivity, and culmi