1
Observational analysis of student activity modes, lesson contexts and teacher
interactions during games classes in high school (11-16 years) physical education
Submitted August 2010
Word Count = 6, 790
Faculty of Education, Community, and Leisure, Liverpool John Moores University, IM
Marsh Campus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool, L17 6BD. Email: s.roberts2@ljmu.ac.uk; Phone:
0151 231 5426
1
REACH Group, and Faculty of Education, Community, and Leisure, Liverpool John
Moores University, IM Marsh Campus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool, L17 6BD. Email:
s.j.fairclough@ljmu.ac.uk; Phone: 0151 231 5384
2
2
ABSTRACT
This purpose of this study was to examine student activity, lesson contexts and teacher
interactions during secondary school physical education using a recently validated systematic
observation instrument termed the system for observing the teaching of games in physical
education (SOTG-PE). Thirty, single-gender high school (11-16 years) physical education
games lessons were systematically observed and recorded using SOTG-PE. Results showed
the pupils were engaged in high levels of inactivity. The highest level of inactivity was
recorded (52.8%) in the striking/fielding category. In the lesson context category general
management was recorded highest (47.4%). The highest recorded teacher interactions across
the three games categories were verbally promoting technical behaviour (40.9%).
KEY WORDS
Physical education
Games
Direct Observation
Teaching
SOTG-PE
3
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Simon Roberts is the programme leader for Sports Coaching and a Senior Lecturer in
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy at Liverpool John Moores University.
Dr Stuart Fairclough is a Professor in Physical Activity Education at Liverpool John Moores
University with research interests in young people’s health and physical activity in school
contexts.
4
Introduction
It has been reported that the teaching of traditional team and individual games tend to
dominate schools’ curricula (Brooker, Kirk, Braiuka & Bransgrove, 2000; Fairclough,
Stratton & Baldwin, 2002; Oslin & Mitchell, 2006). The nature of the games which the
students participate in and learn, are often subject to objective conditions (Butler, 2006).
These can include; cultural variations (García López , Contreas Jordán, Penney & Chandler,
2009); curriculum time (Gower & Capel, 2004); availability of facilities (Butler, 2006) as
well as institutionalised objectives such as meeting recommended levels of physical activity
(Fairclough & Stratton, 2005). The inherent value of learning to play games is reported to
extend beyond just the physical execution of motor skills and techniques (Metzler, 2005).
Participation in team games presents students with the opportunity to develop decision
making skills (Gréhaigne, Ricard & Griffin, 2005). Moreover, participation within a team
game also includes affective benefits, such as social and emotional learning (Butler, 2006)
However, the debate surrounding games education has not focused on ‘which’ game
to teach, but ‘how’ the games should be taught in the first place (Wright, McNeil, Fry &
Wang, 2005). This debate has manifested from early attempts by researchers to provide
superior evidence for one instructional approach to teaching games (e.g., technique) against
another instructional approach (e.g., tactics) (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; French & Thomas,
1987; Rink, 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1992, 1999).
The technique-based approach to
teaching games is reported to follow a sequential three stage process consisting of warm-up,
skill/technical activity, and a game-based activity at the end (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982).
The
origin of the traditional technique-based approach or skill-drill approach, as it is also known
(McNeill, Fry, Wright, Tan & Rossi, 2008) lies in the positivistic epistemology of
behavioural psychology and specifically behaviourist learning theory (Tinning, 2006; Wright
et al., 2005). Behaviourist learning theory is reported to be characterised by the development
5
of specific and observable skills (Tinning, 2006). Furthermore, behaviourist approaches to
learning are largely characterized by the role of external factors, which include inter alia the
role of the teacher (Wallian & Chang, 2006). Consequently, the teacher has responsibility for
the principal pedagogic decisions, such as the organisation and delivery of learning tasks,
facilitating the quantity and quality of the feedback, and deciding on the schedule for practice
(Magill, 1990).
In his comprehensive text Instructional Models for Physical Education (2005),
Metzler provides an informative description of the various pedagogical models that are
available to the teacher of physical education.
According to Metzler, the instructional
model mostly associated with behaviourist learning theory is direct instruction. From a
pedagogic research perspective direct instruction is reported to be the preferred pedagogic
approach in the teaching of techniques and motor skills (Silverman, 1991; Sweeting & Rink,
1999). The pedagogic characteristics associated with direct instruction include; transparent
instructional objectives, sequential chunking of material, reviewing previously taught content,
delivery of new skills, opportunities for practice, and augmented feedback from the teacher
(Sweeting & Rink, 1999). Research into the effectiveness of direct instruction originated
with assessments of teacher and pupil time by quantifying Academic Learning Time-Physical
Education (ALT-PE) (Siedentop, Tousignant & Parker, 1982). Systematic observation
instruments such as ALT-PE permitted researchers to simultaneously record and quantify
lesson contexts and learner involvement. Studies using ALT-PE reported that teachers
predominantly engaged in managing, organising and observing and that the pupils spent 15%
- 21% of the time waiting, listening, and engaging in unplanned tasks (Metzler, 1989). One
study examining relationships between teacher expectations and ALT-PE in a basketball
setting observed that 25% of lesson time was dedicated to subject matter knowledge and in
particular techniques and motor skills, 53% of the lesson time was dedicated to subject matter
6
motor, which included practice opportunities (44.9%) and games (2.1%). Finally, (22%) of
lesson time was engaged in general content, which included transition between activities,
management and breaks (Cousineau & Luke, 1990). These findings were largely supported
in a later study which reported pupils in PE classes spending high proportions of lesson time
in management, and transition and waiting, respectively (Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000).
Instruments to assess the quality of physical education instruction such as ALT-PE were
designed generically for a range of physical education contexts, but not specifically for the
games environment. As such, during games classes ALT-PE makes no distinction between
the various practice categories and alternative game forms that students may be engage in.
Furthermore, ALT-PE does not take into consideration alternative instructional approaches
such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU; Bunker & Thorpe, 1982) and tactical
games concepts.
In contrast to the traditional technique-based approach to teaching games tactical
approaches originated from constructivist learning theory (Fosnot, 1996; Tallir, Musch,
Valcke & Lenoir, 2005). Despite the emergence of constructivism as a recognised learning
theory in the 1980s and 1990s its development has been largely accredited to the earlier work
of Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky (Fosnot, 1996; Phillips, 1995). Constructivism and its theory
of learning can present many challenges for teachers of physical education (Rovegno, 1998;
Rovegno & Bandhauer, 1997). Adopting a pedagogic perspective which prioritises the
teacher as a facilitator of learning and not a transmitter of knowledge may be incongruous to
the educational model experienced by many teachers during their own school years (Cobb &
Yackel, 1996; Light & Wallian, 2008). Moreover, studies have reported that constructivist
principles are complex for both teachers (Gordon, 2009; Rovegno & Bandhauer; Rovegno,
1998) and sports coaches (Roberts, 2011) due to the difficulties associated with adopting
constructivist principles into instructional pedagogy. Early career teachers and student
7
teachers are reported to experience the most difficulty adopting constructivist approaches
because of the various pedagogic demands placed on them which include; inquiry type
activities, managing student interaction, understanding pedagogic content, and assessing
student knowledge (Rovegno, 1998, Windschitl, 2002). These demands can often contrast
with the simpler traditional instructional approach of tell, demonstrate, and drill (McNeill,
Fry, Wright, Tan & Rossi, 2008).
In physical education, constructivist learning theory acted as a conduit for the
development of constructivist games teaching approaches (Brooker, Kirk, Braiuka &
Bransgrove, 2000) such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) (Bunker & Thorpe,
1982) and the Tactical Games Model (TGM) (Metzler, 2005). The constructivist features of
TGfU and TGM include the use of modified games, inquiry activities, opportunities for
students to demonstrate their understanding, and students accepting responsibility for their
own learning (Holt, Strean, & Bengoechea, 2002). For this approach to be effective, it has
been suggested that the teacher follows an inquiry orientated, problem-solving approach and
adopts a questioning based strategy (Light & Fawns, 2003; Wallian & Chang, 2007; Wright
& Forrest, 2007).
Although there have been a number of studies advocating the application of TGfU
and TGM (Alexander & Penney, 2005; Butler, 2005; Griffin et al., 1995; Holt et al., 2002;
Kirk & McPhail, 2002; Light, 2004; Mitchell et al., 1995; Wright et al., 2005) there is still
some debate as to the actual impact these teaching approaches have made on teachers in the
delivery of physical education (Evans & Clarke, 1998; Laws, 1994). This is somewhat
surprising considering the emerging scientific support for random practice through
conditioned games as opposed to specific, technical blocked practice (Ford, Yates &
Williams, 2010; Williams & Hodges, 2005). Furthermore, early studies surrounding TGfU
and TGM attempted to provide support for one approach to teaching games (i.e. technique)
8
against another (i.e. tactics) (Allison & Thorpe, 1997; French & Thomas, 1987; Rink, 1996;
Turner & Martinek, 1999). Despite these early attempts to provide empirical support for
tactical games concepts there is little evidence that TGfU and TGM are widely employed
instructional approaches by teachers of physical education.
Therefore the study aims were to use a games-specific observational tool to, (1)
compare the frequency of student activity modes, lesson contexts, and teacher interactions
during invasion, net/wall, and striking/fielding games classes, and (2) to investigate the
association between teaching interactions, student activity, and lesson contexts during
physical education games classes.
Method
Participants and setting
The participants in this study were recruited from a large, single gender secondary
school, located in the north-west of England. The school recruited to this study followed the
requirements for physical education as set out in the NCPE (QCA, 2007a). In addition to the
requirements outlined in the formalised curriculum the school provided pupils with
opportunities to be involved in competitive school sport. Examples of the sports available
included: rugby union, field hockey, cricket, and European handball. The participants (740
boys, age range 11-16 years) were randomly selected from five year groups within the school
(Year 7, age 11-12 = 5 classes; Year 8, age 12-13 = 7 classes; Year 9, age 13-14 = 10 classes;
Year 10, age 14-15 = 4 classes; Year 11, age 15-16 = 4 classes). The participants provided
written informed assent and parental consent for the study which was approved by the local
University Ethics Committee. The school also provided written permission for the
observations to take place. Four full-time male physical education teachers and a male preservice education teacher (M age =35.8 years, age range: 24-52 years) also participated. The
four full-time teachers were selected because of their recognised experience and knowledge
9
in the teaching of games. The teaching staff were informed about the nature of the study and
were informed the observations would focus on pedagogic approaches to teaching games.
They were told this would include technical approaches (i.e. skill-drill) and selected tactical
pedagogy (i.e. TGfU). Although the teaching staff indicated a preference for teaching via a
skill-based instructional approach [informal correspondence] they also were competent in the
demands and requirements of tactical based instruction, such as TGfU. They were not shown
a copy of the SOTG-PE instrument or the specific coding protocols of the observational tool.
Furthermore, the teachers were requested not to modify their teaching behaviours or
instructional content in any way during the observed classes. All the teaching staff provided
written informed consent to take participate.
Observation Instrument
The observation instrument used was the System for Observing the Teaching of
Games in Physical Education (SOTG-PE) (Roberts & Fairclough, 2011). The validity of the
SOTG-PE and its development are described in detail elsewhere (Roberts & Fairclough,
2011). However, to provide clarity for interested readers a short summary will be provided.
The SOTG-PE permits the simultaneous recording of an individual target child’s physical
activity type, lesson activity context and teacher interactions. Data for different individual
children and teachers can be summed to provide information on the overall games lesson
environment. Thus, the system provides for the simultaneous recording of students activities
and behaviours during games lessons and allows comparisons among children within the
same games lesson and over time. The System for Observing the Teaching of Games in
Physical Education uses momentary time sampling techniques (10-seconds of observation
followed by 10-seconds for recording what was observed), where the observation of a child’s
activity, lesson context, are recorded during each interval. Partial interval coding techniques
are also employed in the observation interval to record the pedagogic interactions of the
10
teacher. For example, at the record prompt the observer codes the target student’s activity
type and the context of the lesson for the observed student. During the record prompt the
observer also makes a decision regarding the teaching pedagogy employed by the teacher.
This decision is based on whether the teaching is verbally or non-verbally promoting
technical or tactical based instruction. If during the record prompt the teacher is not engaged
in any of these behaviours ‘none’ is recorded.
During the SOTG-PE validation study inter-observer and intra-observer reliability
scores were conducted to assess instrument and researcher reliability. This involved the first
author and a trained observer simultaneously and independently coding 12 video recorded
games lessons. The inter-observer analyses were conducted away from the school
environment. The inter-observer agreement values for the SOTG-PE categories were student
activity (89%), lesson context (92%) and teacher interactions (87%).
To establish intra-
observer agreement a trained observer used SOTG-PE to code two separate classes, one week
apart. The intra-observer agreement scores for the observer were student activity (88%),
lesson context (91%) and teacher interactions (87%). Inter- and intra-observer agreement
levels for each SOTG-PE category surpassed the criterion level of ≥ 85% (Brewer & Jones,
2002).
Procedure
The observations for the study were conducted by the first author, who visited the
school twice a week for a period of eight consecutive weeks between March and May 2009.
A total of 30 physical education classes (50 minutes in length) were observed and recorded.
The longest lesson was recorded at 49 minutes and the shortest 35 minutes
Seventeen of the physical education classes were video recorded in the school sports
hall from a viewing gallery which overlooked the lesson environment. Three classes (fieldhockey) were recorded outdoors on the school’s astro-turf pitch and ten classes were recorded
11
on the school’s grass fields (cricket = 9; rounders = 1). A video camera (Sony HDV 1080i)
with a wide-angle lens was mounted onto a tripod and connected to a Wireless Microphone
System (Sennheiser EW 100-ENG G2). This enabled the movements and responses of the
target pupils as well as the verbal communication of the teachers to be captured. The input
receiver of the wireless microphone system was attached to the video camera, thus allowing
for the simultaneous recording of video footage and verbal comments (Becker & Wrisberg,
2008).
Before each lesson four pupils from the class register were randomly selected by the
class teacher to be observed. Each randomly selected pupil wore a highly visible coloured
vest, which contrasted with the school’s regulation physical education uniform. The
recording of the lesson commenced when the first pupil entered the lesson environment and
ended when the teacher dismissed the whole class. The first target pupil was observed and
recorded for four minutes; the author used a timer display on the screen of the camera and a
pre-recorded audio file to ensure accuracy. At the conclusion of the first four minutes the
second target pupil was located and observed, this procedure was followed for the third and
fourth pupil and repeated sequentially until the class were dismissed by the teacher.
Data analysis
Individual data were initially screened for missing or implausible values. The
dependent variables were the SOTG-PE categories, which were summed and divided by the
total number of classes, to determine the mean percentage of lesson time spent in different
activity types, lesson contexts and teacher interactions. The independent variables were the
three games categories of invasion, striking/fielding, and net/wall. Tests for normality were
conducted for each data set by employing Shapiro-Wilk tests, which revealed that the pupil
activity data were distributed normally, but the lesson context and teacher interaction data
exhibited a moderately non-normal distribution. A one-way between groups analysis of
12
variance with post-hoc test were performed to explore the potential differences with each of
the pupil activity variables between the games categories. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis
tests were conducted on the lesson context and teacher interaction variables. Follow up
Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to determine where significant differences occurred.
In addition, relationships between pupil activity, lesson context and teacher interaction
variables were examined using Spearman’s rank order correlations. All analyses were
conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences v.15 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL,
USA), and the alpha level was set at p < 0.05.
Results
A total of 30 physical education games classes were observed, resulting in 1379
minutes of overall video footage coded using the SOTG-PE. After accounting for the time
taken for pupils to change into their physical education uniforms, the longest lesson was
recorded at 49 minutes and the shortest 35 minutes. Each teacher was observed on six
separate occasions. A summary of the descriptive results, including percentages of time,
means and standard deviations for the pupil activity contexts are displayed in table 1.
[Insert Table 1 here]
Descriptive results for the non-normally distributed lesson context and teacher
interaction data including minimum and maximum values, median scores and the interquartile range (ICR) for the different games categories are presented in the tables below.
[Insert Table 2 here]
[Insert Table 3 here]
[Insert Table 4 here]
Pupil Activity Context
The results of the ANOVA with post-hoc tests revealed no significant difference in
the percentage of time the pupils were engaged in the various pupil activity codes across the
13
three games categories. The highest proportion of lesson time was recorded in the inactive
category. The highest recorded percentage of lesson time spent inactive was (52.8%) in the
striking and fielding category. The percentage of lesson time which recorded the highest
activity level was locomotion (33.4%). This was recorded in the invasion game category.
A complete list of results from the ANOVA are summarised in Table 5.
[Insert Table 5 Here]
Lesson Context
The largest recorded proportion of lesson time was recorded in the general
management category (47.4%). In the practice categories of technical practice and applied
skill practice the highest recorded times were (11.4%) and (9.8%), respectively. For the
specific games categories a high of (74.2%) was recorded for full game and a low of (0.0%)
for modified game. During the three game categories, there were significant differences in
the time spent in the warm up (χ² (2) 12.0, p = .002), general management (χ² (2) 8.18, p =
.01), technical practice (χ² (2) 4.81, p = .01), applied skill practice (χ² (2) 8.33, p = .001) and
modified game (χ² (2) 4.80, p = .001). The allocated time for the warm up (7.64%) and
general management (47.4%) was significantly greater in striking and fielding classes than
net/wall (1.07% and 33.6%, respectively, p <.005) and invasion games (3.93% and 44.5%
respectively, p <.005), however the pupils spent more time in modified games contexts
during invasion games classes (5.17%) than striking and fielding (4.96%) and net/wall
(0.0%). There was a significantly higher percentage of lesson time dedicated to technical
practice in net/wall games (11.4%) than invasion games (6.41%) and striking and fielding
(10.8%). The largest percentage of lesson time dedicated to applied skill practice was
net/wall (9.80%), which was significantly higher than invasion games (3.54%) and striking
and fielding (2.5%). Significantly more time was spent in modified games in invasion games
14
(5.17%) than net/wall games (0.0%). The full-game category recorded a high of (28.5%) in
invasion games to a low of (9.31%) in striking/fielding games; however these differences
were not significant.
Teacher Interactions
The highest recorded teacher interactions across the three games categories were
verbally promoting technical behaviour (40.9%). Time spent verbally promoting tactical
behaviour was (16.7%) of lesson time. Non-verbally promoting technical behaviour was
evident (3.0%) of lesson time and non-verbally promoting tactical behaviour was recorded at
(0.9%) of lesson time. Promoting neither technical nor tactical behaviour was recorded at
(37.3%) across the various games categories. Teacher interactions also differed significantly
between various games categories in relation to promoting verbal technical behaviour (χ² (2)
= 8.18, P < .005), and promoting verbal tactical behaviour (χ² (2) = 7.41, P <.005). Follow
up analyses revealed the teachers spent significantly more time verbally promoting tactical
behaviour in invasion games classes (24.4%,) than net/wall (13.1%, P <.001) and striking
and fielding games (12.0%, P <.005). The teachers also spent significantly more time
promoting technical behaviour during invasion games (42.2%) than net/wall games (38.6%, P
<.005).
Pupil Activity, Lesson Context and Teacher Interaction Relationships
Spearman’s rank order correlations revealed a significant positive relationship
between pupil inactivity and general management (r = 0.62, P < 0.01). There were also
significant negative relationships between pupil inactivity and locomotion (r = 0.-78, P <
0.05), motor response (r = 0.-60, P < 0.05), and full-game (r = 0.-49, P < 0.05). A
significant positive relationship was found between motor response and applied skill practice
(r = 0.52, P < 0.02). There was also a significant positive relationship between technical
15
practice and motor/locomotion (r = 0.41, P < 0.02) and verbally promoting technical
behaviour (r = 0.49, P < 0.05). A significant inverse association was observed between
verbally promoting tactical behaviour and technical practice (r = 0.-48, P < 0.05), however a
significant positive relationship was found between verbally promoting tactical behaviour and
modified game (r = 0.46, P < 0.01).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the pupil activity, lesson contexts and
teacher interactions during physical education games classes using a specific systematic
observation instrument (SOTG-PE).
Pupil Activity Context
The pupils in our study were observed to be inactive for a high proportion of lesson
time and this was consistent across the three games categories. It should be noted that the
inactivity code was activated if the pupils were sitting, waiting, or standing and not engaged
in any specific motor or locomotive content. These high levels of inactivity were positively
associated with the general management category which encompassed teachers providing
instruction and explanation. The reported high levels of inactivity (i.e. standing) are similar
to those reported in a recent physical activity study using the System for Observing Fitness
Instruction Time (SOFIT) (Chow, McKenzie & Louie, 2008).
In the present study there
was a strong negative relationship between levels of inactivity and when the pupils were
engaged in playing a full-game. This relationship may be explained by the organisation of
the teams during full-game play. For instance, two teams would be engaged in performing
whilst the remaining teams would be inactive as observers. The playing of a full-game was a
strategy adopted by the teachers who taught the older pupils, in particular, the pupils in the
later stage of secondary education (aged 15-16 years). The format for these classes normally
16
involved a whole class warm-up followed by a full-game. In the early stage of secondary
education (aged 11-14 years) the pupils were engaged in more technical and skill based
practice. These findings were consistent between each of the teachers observed. Our
recorded inactivity levels of (52.8%), (45.3%) and (48.6%) are lower than the reported (64%)
in an ALT-PE basketball study (Cousineau & Luke, 1990). However, these levels of
inactivity are comparable with results from a recent study examining physical activity levels
within the revised English National Curriculum Physical Education (NCPE) (QCA, 2007)
(Fairclough & Mersh, 2010, in press). This particular study reported high inactivity levels
among boys (53.1%) and girls (65.3%); these were attributed to high levels of teacher
instruction and management contexts. Recent changes to the English NCPE (QCA, 2007b)
include the adoption of six content themes, the study above reported on three of these themes
(1) ‘Outwitting Opponents’ (2) ‘Accurate Replication’ and (3) ‘Exercising Safely and
Effectively’. These revisions to the English NCPE involve the pupils in more cognitive
decision making as well as the teachers providing opportunities for the pupils to observe each
other and make simplistic judgements about performance. In the current study the highest
percentage of activity (i.e. locomotion/motor locomotion) was recorded in the invasion game
category (33.4%) (i.e. European handball, basketball and field hockey). This finding is
consistent with previous studies reporting physical activity during games classes (Fairclough
& Stratton, 2005b).
Lesson Context
The lesson context percentages across the three games categories revealed that the
majority of the lesson time was devoted to general management (42.98%) and a full-game
(20.65%). The percentage of class time recorded in the general management category is
consistent with previous physical education studies (Chow, McKenzie & Louie, 2008)
however; the full-game percentage (20.65%) is higher than a combination of the technical
17
practice and applied skill practice categories (13.71%). The proportion of time allocated to
technical and applied skill practice is lower than the (32%) skill practice recorded using
SOFIT in a recent physical activity study (Chow, McKenzie & Louie, 2008). Interestingly,
modified games was recorded for only (3.89%) of lesson time across the three games
categories. This finding should be of interest to researchers and educators who advocate the
inclusion of modified games and tactical games concepts as a strategy for the teaching and
learning of games in physical education. Modified games and tactical instructional
approaches are reported to be effective in promoting tactical decision making, however, these
conclusions are drawn from studies which employed a multiple treatment design, and the
instructional approaches adopted by the teachers were pre-determined by specific treatments
and controls (Holt, Ward & Wallhead, 2006; Lee & Ward, 2009). Our study, however, did
not adopt a multiple treatment design and in essence asked the question ‘what is going on
here’? The evidence from our data suggest the teachers devoted more class time to technical
and applied-skill based practices, and full-sided games than modified games.
The relatively low percentage of class time devoted to modified games was a surprise,
as the teachers in this study indicated [via a personal correspondence] the importance of
decision making in games and having the knowledge and understanding to apply selected
TGfU principles. It has been suggested that devising and teaching modified games can be
problematic (Light, 2002, Rovegno, 1999) for teachers of physical education, in addition, it
has been reported that teachers prefer the safety of skill and drill practices and are reluctant to
engage their pupils in the instability of modified and conditioned games (Williams & Hodges,
2005). In addition, recent scientific studies have supported the wider use of small-sided and
modified games in developing perceptual, cognitive and motor skills (Ford, Yates &
Williams, 2010). The evidence from this small sample must obviously be viewed with some
caution, however, further studies into the wide spread acceptance of modified games and the
18
impact of TGM pedagogy on teachers of physical education may be worthy of further
investigation.
Teacher Interactions
Verbally promoting technical behaviour was the largest recorded teaching interaction
across the three games categories. The importance of instruction and concurrent feedback in
the learning, teaching and assessment of pupils has been reported previously (Hastie, 1994).
The promotion of technical behaviour was proportionally higher in both technical and skill
related practices as well as small-sided and full-games. Moreover, the SOTG-PE recorded a
significant positive relationship between technical practice and motor/locomotion and
verbally promoting technical behaviour.
It was evident that the teachers in our study were
more comfortable with pro-technical approaches to teaching physical education as there was
little evidence to support the use of pro-tactical pedagogic approaches.
Due to the quantitative design of our study and the recruitment of participants from a
single-gender school, our study contained a number of limitations. Firstly, the quantitative
data provided no insight into the personal teaching philosophies of the teachers recruited to
this study. Therefore, it was not possible to ascertain ‘why’ the teachers were engaged in
specific instructional approaches. Therefore, any further investigations into the pedagogic
approaches adopted by teachers in the teaching of games should consider combing both
quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Ultimately, this may provide some insight as to
‘why’ teachers adopt certain pedagogic strategies. Secondly, the participants in this study
were limited to one boys’ school, and therefore a recommendation for further study is to
include a range of schools and genders. Thirdly, this study did not observe any games from
the target games category. This omission was due to conflicting issues regarding staff
absenteeism and changes to the formal school time-table.
Conclusion
19
The purpose of this study was to examine pupil activity levels, lesson context and
teacher interactions from three different games categories using a specific systematic
observation instrument (SOTG-PE). The pupils were engaged in high levels of inactivity
and spent high proportions of lesson time listening to teaching instructions. The context of
the lessons was predominantly general management. The observed teaching interactions
indicated that the teachers adopted more pro-technical approaches and there was little
evidence to support the use of a pro-tactical pedagogy.
Whilst the feasibility, reliability and
validity of the SOTG-PE in additional contexts, such as girls and co-educational physical
education requires further assessment, this study has indicated that SOTG-PE can be a useful
instrument in evaluating and recording the teaching of games in a physical education
environment.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the teachers and the children who were involved in this
study.
References
Alexander, K., & Penney, D. (2005). Teaching under the influence: feeding Games for
Understanding into the Sport Education development refinement cycle. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10 (3): 287-301.
Allison, S. & Thorpe, R. (1997). A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to
teaching games within physical education. A skill approach versus a game for
understanding approach, British Journal of Physical Education, Autumn.
Becker, A.J., & Wrisberg,C.A. (2008). Effective coaching in action: Observations of
legendary collegiate basketball coach, Pat Summitt. The Sport Psychologist, 22: 197211.
20
Brewer, J., C., & Jones, L. R. (2002). A five-stage process for establishing contextually valid
systematic observation instruments: The case of rugby union. The Sport Psychologist,
16: 138-159.
Brooker, R., Kirk, D., Braiuka, S., & Bransgrove, A. (2000). Implementing a game sense
approach to teaching junior high school basketball in a naturalistic setting. European
Physical Education Review, 6: 7-26.
Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the Teaching of Games in Secondary Schools.
Bulletin of Physical Education 18(1): 5-8.
Butler, I.J. (2006). Curriculum constructions of ability: enhancing learning through Teaching
Games for Understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport, Education and
Society, 11, 3: 243-258.
Butler, I.J. (2005). TGfU pet-agogy: old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10 (3): 225-240.
Chow, B.C., McKenzie, T.L., & Louie, L. (2008). Children’s physical activity and
environmental influences during elementary school physical education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 27: 38-50.
Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1996) .Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the
context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4):175-190.
Cousineau, W.J., & Luke, M.D. (1990). Relationship between teacher expectations and
academic learning time in sixth grade physical education lessons. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 9: 262-271.
Evans, J., & Clarke, C. (1988). Changing the face of physical education. In J. Evans (Ed)
Teachers, teaching and control: London, Falmer.
21
Fairclough, S.J., Stratton, G., & Baldwin, G. (2002). The contribution of secondary school
physical education to lifetime physical activity. European Physical Education
Review, 8, 1: 69-84.
Fairclough, S. J. & Stratton, G. (2005). Physical Activity Levels in Middle and High School
Physical Education: A Review. Pediatric Exercise Science, 17, 3: 217-220.
Fairclough, S.J., & Mersh, R. (2010) Physical activity, lesson context, and teaching
behaviours within the revised English National Curriculum for Physical Education: A
case study of one school, European Physical Education Review (In Press)
Ford, P.R., Yates, I., & Williams, M. (2010). An analysis of practice activities and
instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: Exploring the
link between science and application. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28(5): 483-495.
Fosnot, C.T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
French, K.E. & Thomas J.R. (1987). The relation of knowledge development to children’s
basketball performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9: 15-32.
García López, L.M., Contreas Jordán, O. R., Penney, D., & Chandler, T. (2009). The role
transfer in games teaching: Implications for the development of the sports curriculum.
European Physical Education Review, 15, 1: 47-63.
Gower, C., & Capel, S. (2004). Newly Qualified Physical Education Teachers' Experiences
of Developing Subject Knowledge Prior to, during and after a Postgraduate Certificate
in Education Course. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 9, 2: 165-183.
Gréhaigne, J.F., Richard, J.F. & Griffin, L.L. (2005). Teaching and Learning Team Sports
and Games, RoutledgeFalmer: New York.
Griffin, L., Oslin, J. L. & Mitchell, S. A. (1995). An analysis of two instructional approaches
to teaching net games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 66, A-64.
22
Hastie, P.A. (1994). Selected teacher behaviours and pupil ALT-PE in secondary school
physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 13: 242-259.
Holt, E.J., Ward, P. & Wallhead, T.L. (2006). The transfer of learning from play practices to
game play in young adult soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
11, 2: 101-118.
Holt, N. L., Strean, W.B. & Bengoechea, E.G. (2002). Expanding the teaching games for
understanding model: new avenues for future research and practice. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 21: 162-176.
Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning:
rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
21: 177-192.
Laws, C. (1994). ‘Rhetorical justification for new approaches to teaching games: are teachers
deluding themselves? Proceedings of the 10th Commonwealth and Scientific
Congress, University of Victoria, Canada.
Lee, M.A., & Ward, P. (2009). Generalization of tactics in tag rugby from practice to games
in middle school physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14, 2:
189-207.
Light, R. (2004). Coaches’ experiences of Game Sense: opportunities and challenges.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 9(2): 115-131.
Light, R., & Fawns, R. (2003). Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action through
TGfU. Quest, 55, (2): 161-176.
Light, R., & Wallian, N. (2008). A constructivist-informed approach to teaching swimming.
Quest, 60: 387-404.
23
McNeill, M.C., Fry, J.M., Wright, S.C., Tan, C.W.K., & Rossi, T. (2008). Structuring time
and questioning to achieve tactical awareness in games lessons. Physical Education
& Sport Pedagogy, 13, 3: 231-249.
Metzler, M.W. (1989). A review of research on time in sport pedagogy, Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 8: 87-103.
Metzler, M.W. (2005). Instructional Models for Physical Education, Holcomb Hathaway,
Publishers, Inc.
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.
QCA (2007a) Physical Education Programme of Study: Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority (www.curriculum.qca.org).
QCA (2007b) Physical Education: Programme of Study for Key Stage 3 and Attainment
Target, London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Oslin, J., & Mitchell, S. (2006). Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In
D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Ed.), The handbook of physical education
(pp. 627-651). Sage Publications, London.
Phillips, D.C. (1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism.
Educational Researcher, 24: 5-12.
Rink, J.E. (1996). Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games [monograph].
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4): 3.
Roberts, S.J. Teaching games for understanding (2011). The difficulties and challenges
experienced by participation cricket coaches, Physical Education and Sport
Pedagogy, 16 (1): 33-48.
24
Roberts, S.J., & Fairclough, S.J. (2011) A five-stage process for the development and
validation of a systematic observation instrument: The System for Observing the
Teaching of Games in Physical Education (SOTG-PE) (In Press).
Rovegno, I. (1998). The Development of In-Service Teachers’ Knowledge of
a Constructivist Approach to Physical Education: Teaching beyond Activities.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69: 147-62.
Rovegno, I. & Bandhauer, D. (1997). Norms of the school culture that
facilitated teacher adoption and learning of a constructivist approach to
physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16: 401-25.
Siedentop, D., Tousignant, M., & Parker, M. (1982). Academic learning time –physical
education, 1982 revision coding manual, Unpublished manuscript.
Siedentop, D., & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education,
fourth edition. Mayfield Publishing Company.
Silverman, S. (1991). Research on teaching in physical education. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 62: 352-364.
Sweeting, T., & Rink, J.E. (1999). Effects of direct instruction and environmentally designed
instruction on the process and product characteristics of a fundamental skill. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 18: 216-233.
Tallir, I.B., Musch, E., Valcke, M., & Lenoir, M. (2005). Effects of two instructional
520 approaches for basketball on decision-making and recognition ability.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36, 107-126.
Tinning, R. (2006). Theoretical orientations in physical education. In D. Kirk, D.
Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Ed.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 369385). Sage Publications, London
25
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.
Wallian, N., & Chang, C-W. (2006). Development and learning of motor skill competencies.
In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Ed.), The handbook of physical
education (pp. 292-311). Sage Publications, London.
Williams, M.A., & Hodges, N.J. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer:
Challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(6): 637-650.
Wright, J., & Forrest, G. (2007). A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction and
games centred approaches to teaching. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 12(3):
273-288.
Wright, S., McNeill, M., Fry. J. and Wang, J. (2005). Teaching teachers to play and teach
games’, Physical Education and Sports Pedagogy 10(1): 61-82.
Wright, S., McNeil, Fry, J., Tan, S., Tan, C. and Schempp, P. (2006). Implications of Pupil
Teachers’ Implementation of a Curricular Innovation. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education: 310-328.
26
Table 1
Proportion of lesson time in Student Activity Type
_________________________________________________________________________________
SOTG-PE variable
n
Low
High
M
SD
___________________________________________________________________________
Student Activity Type (% lesson)
Inactive
30
34.80
64.80
49.29 8.90
Motor Response
30
2.10
15.90
8.11
Locomotion
30
11.40
44.90
30.46 9.77
Motor/Locomotion
30
.00
8.30
4.16
2.29
Motor/Locomotion Off-Task
30
4.20
25.70
7.95
4.45
3.28
27
Table 2
Proportion of class time in Lesson Context and Teacher Interactions for Invasion Games
_________________________________________________________________________________
SOTG-PE variable
Low
High
Median
ICR
___________________________________________________________________________
Lesson Context (% lesson)
Warm-up
.00
15.90
2.10
5.30
General management
18.30
58.50
44.2
15.80
Technical practice
.00
28.50
6.10
10.55
Applied skill practice
.00
28.80
.00
4.90
Modified game
.00
12.50
.00
10.90
Small-sided game
.00
39.00
6.90
14.45
Full-game
.00
74.20
24.3
38.2
Free play
.00
9.00
.00
7.50
Other
.00
.00
.00
.00
Verbal pro- tactical
4.20
52.80
26.50
12.00
Non verbal pro-tactical
.00
3.00
.700
1.40
Verbal pro-technical
30.56
70.00
35.37
15.36
Non verbal pro-technical
.00
3.80
3.50
1.03
None
9.00
52.40
34.00
28.30
Teacher Interactions (% lesson)
28
Table 3
Proportion of class time in Lesson Context and Teacher Interactions for Striking and
Fielding Games
_________________________________________________________________________________
SOTG-PE variable
Low
High
Median
ICR
___________________________________________________________________________
Lesson Context (% lesson)
Warm-up
.00
10.40
9.10
3.50
General management
35.40
55.10
49.0
9.20
Technical practice
.00
27.10
9.80
6.58
Applied skill practice
.00
12.50
.00
3.13
Modified game
.00
12.50
4.15
9.28
Small-sided game
.00
22.90
18.40
10.30
Full-game
.00
47.20
.00
13.85
Free play
.00
9.00
.00
7.50
Other
.00
.00
.00
.00
Verbal pro- tactical
.70
52.80
5.30
14.60
Non verbal pro-tactical
.00
.70
.00
.18
Verbal pro-technical
28.57
47.22
45.32
11.92
Non verbal pro-technical
0.0
3.80
3.50
1.03
None
12.50
56.30
47.70
9.23
Teacher Interactions (% lesson)
29
Table 4
Proportion of class time in Lesson Context and Teacher Interactions for Net/Wall games
_________________________________________________________________________________
SOTG-PE variable
Low
High
Median
ICR
___________________________________________________________________________
Lesson Context (% lesson)
Warm-up
.00
7.50
.00
.00
General management
18.30
41.90
31.80
11.0
Technical practice
.00
15.20
13.00
6.60
Applied skill practice
.00
13.60
10.90
4.50
Modified game
.00
.00
.00
.00
Small-sided game
.00
39.00
.00
38.40
Full-game
.00
74.20
40.90
43.90
Free play
.00
9.00
.00
7.50
Other
.00
.00
.00
.00
Verbal pro- tactical
5.10
19.70
15.00
14.60
Non verbal pro-tactical
.00
7.20
.800
7.20
Verbal pro-technical
27.62
70.00
37.87
8.17
Non verbal pro-technical
.08
7.60
3.80
2.00
None
14.20
57.10
37.90
14.30
Teacher Interactions (% lesson)
30
Table 5
Comparison of student time spent in the games activity categories
___________________________________________________________________________
Category
Striking
Net/Wall
Invasion
F (2, 27)
p
___________________________________________________________________________
Inactive
52.8
45.3
48.6
1.56
.22
Motor Response
8.41
9.44
7.16
1.17
.32
Locomotion
25.7
31.6
33.4
1.90
.16
Motor/Locomotion
4.8
4.8
3.3
1.55
.22
Motor/Locomotion
Off-Task
8.14
8.70
7.40
.193
.82