Session 5

Pedagogical Models in Physical Education

TEACHING GAMES FOR

UNDERSTANDINGThe work of Rod Thorpe and

Dave Bunker

Loughborough University UK

TGFU - THE BEGINNING

• In the early 80’s, Rod Thorpe and Dave Bunker had begun to think about how games could be taught differently

• Primarily, this was fuelled by the failure to retain children in games and their early exclusion.

• A result of this was to develop an approach to games that develops the understanding of the game, specifically:

• Its structure• Some rules• Its meaning• Its point• Roles of the players• The type of game that it is

THE BASIS OF TGFU

• Games can be enjoyed by all in spite of ability

• Skills seldom emerge from drills that are repetitive

• Isolated practice does not transfer to game

• Games Sense is lost, or indeed not ever developed!

TYPES OF GAMES

• Invasion games– Purposes

– to invade and control territory

– Retain possession– To create scoring

opportunities– Get behind defences

• Striking and fielding games

– Purposes– Strike a ball into

space– To run a given

distance to score– To defend a space

with the bat

• Divided Court games– Purpose

– Score on opposition’s side of court

– strike ball(or similar within space but away from opponent

• Rebound games– Purpose

– Hit ball against a wall such that it does not return to opponent

– Control an area where ball is likely to travel most (the ‘T’ in squash

– Move opponent around

TGFU - THE MODEL

• The model starts and finishes with the game• It is about decision making within contexts• It starts with game appreciation• It looks at both what to do and how to do it• It does not deny skill development

• Is there evidence from pedagogy research about TGFU as an effective method of instruction?

• Very little– Some from the USA which fails to take into account the

broader ends of understanding approaches– Some from USA which is very positive– Some from the UK which is supportive– Study in Australia by David Kirk and Ross Brooker

which is still active but which shows promise

• However in 2001, the first international TGFU conference was held in New Hampshire - an overwhelming vote of confidence in TGFU effectiveness.

TGFU - WHERE TO FOR YOU?

• Be bold and experiment• Use the game to teach the game• Differentiate expectations for learners• Condition games creatively to develop requisite skills• Be prepared to change games and activities to suit

differing contexts• Be patient. Learners will not develop an understanding

overnight.• They will learn the essence of games and develop ‘games

sense• What precedents are there?

– Australian Rugby Union– English Football Association– Queensland Cricket

MOSSTON’S TEACHING SPECTRUM

From Command to Discovery

WHAT IS THE SPECTRUM?

• In the mid 1960’s Musska Mosston came up with the idea of what he called a ‘unified theory of teaching.

• He called this the Spectrum of Teaching Styles. Its basic premise was that it went from “Command to Discovery”.

• Over the last 35 years, the spectrum has continued to evolve.

• Mosston felt that teaching physical education could be conducted in a number of different ways using a variety of ‘styles’.

• The styles he claimed were contingent upon:• The purposes of the lesson• The lines of communication • Proposed channels of development

• Mosston was keen to point out that at no time did he want to suggest that one style was necessarily better than another

WHAT IS THE SPECTRUM?

• The Non-Discovery Styles – Command Style (A)– Practice Style (B)– Reciprocal Style (C)– Self Check Style (D)– Inclusion Style (E)

• These styles are largely teacher centred• Most decisions about content, timing etc are with

teacher• These forms of teaching/coaching will be most

familiar to you

THE SETS OF DECISIONS

• The pre-impact set– Decisions made before the lesson– Involves (most importantly) choice of content

and organisational structure

• The impact set– Decisions made during the lesson e.g. pace,

timing start and finish times • The post-impact set

– Feedback and other evaluative procedures.. Possibly reflection

ACROSS THE DISCOVERY THRESHOLD

• The Discovery Styles– Guided Discovery (Style F)– Divergent (Style G)

• Style F (Guided Discovery) is based on the notion of convergence - that the right answer can be found by asking questions that yield the ‘right’ answer

• Questions needs to be pitched at the right level so that each correct answer is one more step towards the ‘solution’

• This style is more about the learning of a concept which might be transferable e.g. fielding a ground ball and say goal-keeping in soccer

• It is the first move across the Discovery Threshold, though the teacher still has ‘all the answers’

• It requires the teacher to modify conventional behaviour• ‘Urge’ to give the answer needs to be tempered• The skill is in asking the questions appropriately

ACROSS THE DISCOVERY THRESHOLD

• Style G: The Divergent Style is, according to Mosston this style is the natural extension to Style F- Guided Discovery

• This style is consistent with the contemporary work in the teaching of games– Rod Thorpe’s ideas on ‘games sense’ and ‘games for

understanding’– Allan Launder’s ideas on “Play Practice”

• Mosston’s claim here is:• The divergent style (style G) occupies a unique

place on the Spectrum. For the first time the learner is engaged in discovering and producing options within the subject matter. … This style involves the learner in the human capacity for diversity; it invites the learner to go beyond the known. (Mosston and Ashworth, 1986, p. 190)

ACROSS THE DISCOVERY THRESHOLD

• Whilst Mosston says that the fields of physical education, dance and sport are “rich in opportunities” to come up with solutions to movement problems, we seldom see examples of it in practice

• Reasons:– Power and control– ‘efficiency’ argument– Perceived discipline problems– Professional risk

• Why do it? Generally, the variety of human movement is regarded as infinite hence one assumes the human is capable of adaptation to stimulus

– Recent work in skill acquisition seems to confirm this– Skill emerges from the interaction of ‘constraints’– Supported by Schmidt’s idea of variability– Recent work in constructivism also adds support

• In other words, humans ‘construct’ responses

THE KEY TO DIVERGENCE

• The teacher makes decisions about activity area (consistent with work program/syllabus etc)

• Learner makes decisions about specifics• The solutions of the learner become the subject

matter • The teacher manipulates the ‘constraints’• This pedagogical approach is not new and it

underpins much of the work in educational gymnastics, movement education, and more recently games

• Now though we have a more robust model and research data to support the value of child centred pedagogy in physical activity

SPORT EDUCATION

Learning through Sport

Reasons for Sport Education

• Formalises sport as the subject matter of physical education

• Objectives for ‘work’ in physical education can be easily defined and determined

• Logical development as basically already exists

• Reinstates the importance of sport which some scholars has been lost because of ‘progressive’ ideology in physical education (Seidentop)

• Provides a developmental path for the work of physical education

• Creates a framework for inter (and intra)-school competition generally regarded as ‘healthy’

But what is Sport Education?

• There is general confusion here as the terminology is not clear• For some it is simply the most appropriate label for what is done

in what is generally referred to as PE• Hence it is ‘naturalised’ and ‘normalised’ (Foucault, 1980)• In some curricula it is a much closer description of what goes on

(in other words) the subject content matter an example is the NCPE (UK)

• Others take a different view – that it is education through sport … the work of Ken Alexander, Andrew Taggart and the team at Edith Cowan University in Perth:

• highly developed program involving many schools in a broad cross-curricular project with sport as the main vehicle.

• much broader role description within sport• broader range of learning outcomes

Problems with Sport Education?

• May still lead to exclusivity particularly if the model is simply regarded as ‘natural’

• May result in lots of duplication given the exponential growth of community sport

• Sport may not provide good foundational early motor skill acquisition

• The learning available may be limited

• It may not address motor problems that can be overcome by a broader range of motor experiences

• There is little evidence that it really leads to lifelong habits of physical activity involvement

• It may actively work against this though in an unintended way

AUSSIE SPORT - An example of Primary Sport Education

• Visits are infrequent

• Seen as ‘time off’ for the classroom teacher

• generally little follow up

• usually lots of brightly coloured equipment

• staff members are usually trained in physical education or coaching

• programs often based around an award system

• games and equipment often modified to appropriate levels but not always in appropriate ways

OVER TO YOU

Think about your Sport Education experience last week. Was it a worthwhile exercise?What are the pros and cons about using Sport education as a primary PE teacher? In groups of 3-4 discuss and list these.

Report back to the group.