Session ID : 48580
Title: A Key Concept in Teaching Ball games
Sponsoring Association: National Association for Sport and Physical Education
Track: Best Practices
Planner
Ryosuke Tsuchida(Ph.D.) - Joetsu University of Education
(tsuchida@juen.ac.jp)
Speaker
Ryosuke Tsuchida(Ph.D.) - Joetsu University of Education
Naoki Suzuki(Ph.D.) - Tokyo Gakugei University
Osamu Suzuki(Ph.D.) - Nihon University
Katsuhiro Hirose(M.A.) - Kagoshima University
Takaya Kitazawa(M.A.) – Nihon University (Graduate School of Education)
Session Description: In this session, a useful concept will be proposed for teaching ball games. It seems
difficult for school teachers to grasp the hundreds of technical terms used in many ball games. It would be
preferable for teachers to use easy language for expressing tactical actions. If we focus on the track of the
ball, one-two pass, pass-and-run and most offensive actions emerge as BYPASS. This concept will help
teachers understand complex tactical actions easily.
Fig.1 BYPASS (going around)
1
This session will be designed based on our series of presentations from 2007, 2008, 2010
AAHPERD national convention & expo. We had proposed a new idea of classifying ball games. Also, we
had pointed out that BREAKTHROUGH had been a key concept in the classification.
Fig 2. Basic structure of ball games
Source: Osamu Suzuki, Naoki Suzuki, Ryosuke Tsuchida and Katsuhiro Hirose, (2008) Fundamental Examination of Task-Solving Process in
Learning Ball games, AAHPERD National convention & Expo Fort Worth (NASPE Research Poster session).
In the previous session, an approach to ball games on the basis of task-solving in
learning Breakthrough + Target-shooting will be suggested. We proposed a new idea of a
layered structure of defensive thresholds (barrier) which were constituted with a “Main
Defensive Threshold (barrier)” and its assistant(s) last year. We proposed a tactical approach
(such as TGA, TGfU, Play Practice) in basketball with this idea. The approach makes students
understand their actual confrontation1 between offense and defense.
The defensive threshold is differentiated between the “Main Defensive Threshold” and its
assistant(s)“Sub Defensive Threshold”, so that they constitute the layered structure (Fig.2).
We use the term “confrontation” instead of “situation”. When we use “confrontation”, that
means “situation from the players’ view.
1
2
Fig.3 Task-Solving Process in Ball games
Source: Osamu Suzuki, Naoki Suzuki, Ryosuke Tsuchida and Katsuhiro Hirose, (2008) Fundamental Examination of Task-Solving Process in Learning
Ball games, AAHPERD National convention & Expo Fort Worth (NASPE Research Poster session).
However, we noticed that a practical method for the offense to breakthrough a defense line would
be a BYPASS (going around) or a STRAIGHT (going straight).
3
We believe that it would be preferable for both teachers and learners to use easy language in PE
classes, because novice learners will have a chance to take part in discussion among learners with easy
language. Moreover, if you watch the games with the concept, you can assess the tactical actions easier.
Novice learners can also get a feeling to be one of the members of his/her team.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
4
Experiment
Target of Investigation
In our research, we targeted 20 trainee teachers from a graduate school who had no experience in
playing basketball other than in school physical education lessons.
Outline and Results of the Experiment
In our research, we showed the same video to all 20 subjects individually and then separated them
into groups based on the results. Following this, we again showed the same video to both groups
individually and let them to provide assessments using different methods of evaluation.
The video showed a first-year girls’ basketball game in progress at junior high school J, prefecture N.
We selected consecutive videos of one and a half minutes in duration for our research from among videos
of games of three minutes in duration, and comprising of two teams of 4 members, the conditions for
these being that they featured the exertion of individual play, such as shooting and cuts, and that they also
contained multiple scenes of indirect approaches.
We used ZeroMethod’s Plural Media Player ver.2.31 and combined the selected videos so that two
videos could be played simultaneously on a single PC screen. The reason for this was to provide complete
coverage of the on-court movements of players.
Before conducting our surveys, we showed all subjects a video of a game created separately from the
video used in research so that they got used to watching two videos simultaneously. Also, we conducted a
preliminary survey to assess the age, presence or absence of ball game experience, number of years of
experience, and teaching experience of all subjects.
In our surveys, we had them assess only four players of one team as we deemed that it would be
impossible to assess all eight players.
In the first survey, we conducted a preliminary survey to separate the subjects into groups for the
second survey. We presented all subjects with an outline of our research and a piece of paper upon which
5
was written ‘Please point out the players that are contributing to their team’s play’ and got them to give
their assessments while watching the film on the PC. We showed them the same film three times and got
them to give their assessments. On the first viewing, we got them to focus on and assess both offense and
defense. On the second and third viewings, we got them to focus on and assess either offense or defense.
We got those subjects who occupied even numbers on our list to focus on and assess only offense on the
second viewing and only defense on the third viewing. We got those subjects who occupied odd numbers
on our list to focus on and assess only defense on the second viewing and only offense on the third
viewing.
After having gotten the subjects to give their assessments, we conducted an interview that asked
them about the kinds of play that they pointed to as examples of play that contributed to the team.
As a result of having conducted the first survey, in the second survey, we sorted the subjects by
number from the top in the order of those who selected most players, who contributed to the team from
the aspect of play; we separated them into two groups: an indirect approach group and GPAI group. We
again showed both groups the same video as in the first survey and got them to assess it. In addition to the
perspectives for the evaluation of ball handling specified in the curriculum guidelines in elementary and
junior high schools, such as points gained, assistances, and rebounds, we got the indirect approach group
to conduct their assessments using the idea of contributions in the form of indirect approaches that
necessitate movements when not holding the ball. We got the GPAI group to conduct assessments that
abridged part of the methods of evaluation based on the GPAI developed by Griffin et al. In essence,
GPAI assesss both the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the performance of players. However, in this
research, we judged that it would be extremely difficult to get the subjects to give their assessments using
this kind of method and, thus, decided to employ an abridged version of evaluation that counted only
performances that were effective.
Before getting the subjects to give their assessments, we gave members of both groups a piece of
paper outlining the methods and the format of assessments, and got them to give their assessments while
watching the video on a PC. After having given their assessments, we asked them the questions
6
“Comparing the first survey and second survey, what were you looking at regarding the players in the
second survey? What kinds of things did you come to notice?” and “If you were in charge of a physical
education class as a teacher, would you use the methods of evaluation from the second viewing? Also, do
you think you would be able to use these?”; we got them to answer via email because of their busy
schedules. In both surveys, when giving their assessments the subjects read out the uniform number of the
player that they were evaluating while looking at the screen and recorded this on the assessmentsheet.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
Question 1
Comparing the first survey and second survey, what were you looking at regarding the players
in the second survey? What kinds of things did you become aware?
Answers from Indirect Approach (BYPASS) Group
“I turned my attention also to those students who were not directly involved with the ball. I came to
realize that it is not solely flashy play that contributes to the team.”
“I was able to see how the students moved and passed (indirect approach) in trying to approach the
goal.”
“During the first viewing, as someone who does not have many criteria for evaluation and who does
not have any experience in basketball, I found it quite difficult to assess the students. During the second
time, I had a certain number of criteria and, thus, found it easier to assess.”
“During the first time, I largely assessd visible play such as shots and rebounds, as well as students
who had the ball. However, during the second time, I feel that I was able to see such things as the
movements of students who did not have the ball and the amount of space they were able to penetrate. “
“During the first time, as I was evaluating from the perspective of students who were actively
moving, I wondered whether those who were not moving were playing, or taking the game, seriously.
During the second time, I feel that, having been shown new perspectives, I was able to view both offense
and defense in a more comprehensive way. Regarding offense, I was only watching those people who had
7
the ball and were moving during the first time, however, during the second time, I was able to pay more
attention to those who created paths to their own goals. With defense, I only looked at those who
intercepted or made large moves to protect by making contact, but was subsequently able to see people
who hindered the progress of other people into their own position.”
“During the second time, I was able to watch the movements of children without being lured by the
movements of the ball.”
“The difference between the first and second time is that initially I did not understand the concept
indirect approaches. By developing an understanding on this during the second time, I was able to get a
sense of the detailed aspects of play that are, at first, not apparent, such as slowing down the opponents
and showing good fight.”
“Until now, I focused only on those children who were athletic and who actively went for the ball,
but after the second time, I also began to pay more attention to those children who employed indirect
approaches. I was able to assess multiple players, rather than a particular player.”
“During the second time, I became aware of the movements of students who did not have the ball.”
Answers from GPAI Group
“During the second time, I watched students while remaining aware of the criteria that I had decided
on. As I had created these criteria and watched the game, I think that to a certain extent, I was able to
narrow down my perspective regarding assessments as compared to the first perspective that had differing
interpretations depending on whether people contributed to the team.”
“During the first time, I was watching those players who had the ball, but during the second time, I
came to watch those who did not have the ball.”
“During the first time, I assessd the students through subjective and ambiguous criteria, such as
whether they were enthusiastic or were trying their best. During the second time, as I had an idea of my
own criteria for evaluation, I was also able to pick up on and assess those children who I did not assess
during the first time.”
8
“During the first time, I get the impression that, as I held the highly abstract perspective of watching
those who contributed to the team, I only assessd based on whether they were active. During the second
time, although I was by no means able to watch the game as a whole, as I had decided on a specific
perspective, I feel that I was able to watch the game more objectively than I did the first time.”
“By focusing on GPAI and evaluating students, I sometimes discovered how players played in
certain ways in certain aspects of the game, but compared with the first time, it was difficult to look at the
overall game or individual play. “
“During the first time, I generally watched those students who were involved with the ball or
students relating to basketball moves, but during the second time, I was mainly able to watch the game
from my own perspectives of assessmentsuch as basketball skills and contribution to defense. Thus, I was
able to avoid watching much of the play that was irrelevant. “
“Other than the fact that the second time was only a single evaluation, and that I was to make the
assessments criteria myself, I felt that it is difficult to make assessments if the criteria are vague.”
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
Question 2
If, as a teacher, you were in charge of a physical education class, would you use the methods of
assessment from the second viewing? Also, do you think you would be able to use these?
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
Answers from the Indirect Approach (BYPASS) Group
“Yes, I would use them! I feel that I would like to assess from more diverse perspectives those
children who are not very good at exercising.”
“Yes, I think I would be able to use them in my assessments. However, regarding indirect approaches,
I think that I would not be able to use them unless I taught the students what kinds of play are indirect
approaches. “
“Yes, I thought I would definitely like to use them. I thought that in order to use assessments of
9
indirect approaches, teachers need to posses the skill of watching games from a broad perspective. I think
there are some instances where it is difficult to assess multiple students at the same time, which might lead
to cases in which students are overlooked.”
“I think it is a great method of assessmentstudents do not come to hate physical education just
because they do not get to shoot or obtain the ball on the rebound but can be encouraged to feel as if they
are contributing to the team. However, I feel that evaluation would be difficult as it does not focus solely
on visible play.”
“I would use them. Regarding whether I would be able to use it, I feel it would be difficult unless I
had a certain degree of knowledge on and experience in basketball. However, I think that there is a way to
use it since I was able to understand it after receiving oral instructions.”
“I think evaluating through indirect approaches is interesting. I think I would be able to use it as a
guideline when I come to have my own physical education classes. Although I feel that this alone would
be insufficient, it will be one perspective that I can use.”
“I think I would be able to use them. I think team play only becomes possible with indirect
approaches. I think it is not only the scoring and passes leading up to a goal that contribute most to the
team but also those unnoticed players who work hard to defend and slow down opponents. If this
approach is to be used, it requires the understanding of everyone. I think it is good for those who perform
less noticeable roles. Even if a player is not good at shooting, they have a part to play, such as being able
to run.”
“As ball games are difficult to assess, I feel that if indirect approaches are used when evaluating
things in which I have no experience, I can assess a wider range of children.”
“I think I would be able to use it.”
Answers from GPAI Group
“I felt that GPAI is not possible unless the criteria for evaluation are reduced. It is difficult to
10
memorize a number of criteria and then select criteria that match each type of play on the spot. I feel it is
worth using if the criteria are narrowed down and memorized.”
“Although I do not think that I will use GPAI directly, it is an important perspective. I would like to
consider people’s movements from the perspective of movements that provide cover for people.”
“I think that the more categories there are for evaluation the more difficult evaluation becomes. I do
not think that I would be able to remember all of the categories. I am uneasy as I do not understand which
category is the correct answer.”
“As someone who has no knowledge on or skills in basketball, I would not use this. Although it was
useful in making assessments, it is unclear as to whether it is appropriate. Although I feel it would be
useful for people with experience, as it would clarify points be to assessd, for someone like me who has
no basketball knowledge or skills, it would be suitable to assess players through basics such as shooting
and dribbling in the game, as well as their active participation because it clarifies the viewpoints and
criteria. Therefore, I would refrain from using GPAI.”
“I would not use it. Although I think it might prove to be useful in improving skills when instructing
club activities, I feel the GPAI perspective would be extremely difficult to use in physical education
lessons, and teachers would need training to develop an eye for it in order to link it with assessments.”
“It might be because I am not used to it, however, to be honest, I got the impression that it is difficult
to use. Thus, I do not really feel like using it. If anything, I got the impression that GPAI is a method of
evaluation aimed at club teams and I felt that I would not be able to use it in a school setting.”
“I do not really know. I would probably be able to use it at junior high school and high school
levels.”
11