2010 Híbrido MED - TGFU

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC]
On: 30 November 2011, At: 07:42

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20
Influence of a hybrid Sport Education—Teaching Games

for Understanding unit on one teacher and his students
a b
Peter A. Hastie & Matthew D. Curtner-Smith
a
Auburn University, USA
b
University of Alabama, USA
Available online: 23 Jan 2007
To cite this article: Peter A. Hastie & Matthew D. Curtner-Smith (2006): Influence of a hybrid Sport Education—Teaching
Games for Understanding unit on one teacher and his students, Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 11:01, 1-27
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408980500466813
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy
Vol. 11, No. 1, February 2006, pp. 1 –27
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC] at 07:42 30 November 2011
Influence of a hybrid Sport

Education—Teaching Games for
Understanding unit on one
teacher and his students
Peter A. Hastiea! and Matthew D. Curtner-Smithb
a
Auburn University, USA; bUniversity of Alabama, USA
Background: Sport Education (SE) and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) are two
curriculum models that were developed to help students participate in fair and equitable ways
and challenge their thinking beyond the replication of techniques and skills. Given that the
general aim of both models is to employ more democratic pedagogies and provide sporting
experiences which really allow students to learn how to play well, and considering both models
attempt to realize this goal in slightly different ways and have different foci, it would seem logical
that a coalition of the two might lead to some real pedagogical breakthroughs.
Purpose: To provide descriptive, detailed information about the researcher’s experiences and the
students’ reactions to a unit designed following the structure of SE (seasons, formal competition
and student roles), but with the skills and tactics taught using problem solving and guided
discovery approaches rather than a more command style.
Participants and setting: 29 sixth-grade students (11 boys and 18 girls) at a middle class primary
school in a metropolitan Australian capital meeting daily for 30 minutes over a 5-week period.
Intervention: A 22-lesson hybrid season of ‘batting and fielding games’ formed the basic content of
instruction. The organizational structure of the unit was pure SE, however the main pedagogical
style employed was pure TGfU.
Research design: The design followed that of a ‘teaching experiment’ having four foundational goals:
(i) to examine teaching, learning and subject matters as part of a complex system, (ii) to describe the
learning of subject matter as it occurs in the classroom, (iii) to identify from the teacher’s perspective
the issues, problems and challenges that arise during teaching, and (iv) to develop, refine or provide
illustrations of theory.
Data collection: Following each lesson, each student completed a ‘critical incident reflective sheet’.
Four ‘tactics quizzes’ were given throughout the season. Each team designed its own batting and
fielding game using a ‘game design form’. At the completion of the season, each team
participated in a group interview that explored why they chose to incorporate certain rules or
equipment into their own games and how they would teach the tactics of their games.
!
Corresponding author. 2050 Memorial Coliseum, Auburn University, AL 36849-5323, USA.
Email: hastipe@auburn.edu
ISSN 1740-8989 (print); ISSN 1742-5786 (online)=06=010001–27

# 2006 Association for Physical Education
DOI: 10.1080=17408980500466813
2 P. A. Hastie and M. D. Curtner-Smith
Data analysis: Critical incidence data were sorted into thoughts and perceptions, and the frequency
of thoughts and perceptions within each category and subcategory were computed. Tactical quizzes
were analyzed to determine the number of students who provided an appropriate response to the
scenario. Interview text was reduced to a series of thoughts and perceptions, and these were then
coded and categorized using the same procedure employed during the analysis of the critical
incident data
Findings: The students responded well to the myriad of problems they were asked to solve and by the
unit’s conclusion, were able to understand, appreciate, and execute a number of rudimentary
batting, bowling/pitching, and fielding tactics and strategies and some which were fairly
sophisticated. They also understood the overarching principles, rules and structures of batting/
fielding games, appreciated their importance, and were able to transfer them from one game to
another. Particularly impressive in this respect, was their ability to include risk/reward strategies
and avoid problematic skills in the games that they invented.
Conclusions: It is important to emphasize that combining the two models did not weaken most of the
structural advantages research has suggested SE has over more traditional curricula. However,
combining SE and TGfU placed more emphasis on the teacher to drive and give momentum to
the proceedings and, therefore, teaching was more labour-intensive. In particular, we concluded
that to be successful when delivering a hybrid SE-TGfU unit, a teacher would have to possess
superior content and pedagogical content knowledge.
Keywords: Child-designed games; Critical incident; Elementary physical education; Games

for Understanding; Sport education
During the past 20 years, there has been a concerted effort to present models of games
instruction that involve students participating in fair and equitable ways and challenge
their thinking beyond the replication of techniques and skills. A review of the litera-
ture on games experiences within physical education reveals a litany of critique.
These criticisms can be grouped under the following headings: (a) lack of content
mastery; (b) discriminatory and abusive practices; and (c) irrelevant content (see
Hastie, 2003a). Perhaps the best synopsis of games teaching was provided by Ennis
(1996), who declared that ‘more than apologies are necessary’.
To address these concerns, two curriculum models have been developed that focus
specifically on game play. In an effort to provide an authentic sport experience for chil-
dren, Siedentop (1994) developed Sport Education (SE), a model aimed at producing
competent, literate and enthusiastic sportspeople. To this end, competent sportspeople
have sufficient skill and tactical knowledge to participate successfully in a game.
Literate sportspeople understand and value the rules and traditions of sport and
can distinguish between good and poor sporting practices. Finally enthusiastic sports-
people enhance, protect and preserve the sporting culture through the manner in
which they participate.
These objectives are achieved by mirroring the positive aspects of ‘real sport’ within
physical education units. As Siedentop (1994) notes, this involves organizing blocks of
work as lengthy seasons and students playing on the same team for the duration of that
season, thereby developing a sense of affiliation. Moreover, considerable efforts are
made to produce a festive atmosphere. In addition, students are required to
perform a number of roles other than player and games are usually played in
A hybrid games model 3
conditioned and small-sided form with modified rules. Importantly, as the season
progresses, the teacher gradually gives greater responsibility to students by using less
direct teacher-centered styles of teaching and more indirect student-centered styles.
The second curriculum model, Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU), arose
from dissatisfaction with a focus on technique at the expense of understanding tactics

and strategies (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). In the TGfU model, skill execution and per-
formance are not neglected, but are developed after understanding of the game’s
tactics and strategies is gained. Indeed, the central aim of the model is to place the
spotlight on the player knowing, rather than simply doing.
The TGfU approach has a number of conceptual similarities with SE. First, as
recognized by Siedentop (2002), the model is consistent with a plethora of
contemporary theoretical and instructional approaches and movements including
outcomes-based education, cooperative learning, peer tutoring and authentic assess-
ment. Second, it was also developed following concerns that traditional, more direct,
teacher-centered models of games instruction simply did not interest or inspire
students. Third, the approach is aimed at providing developmentally appropriate
games experiences for students. Fourth, it involves students participating in small-
sided games with modified rules, equipment and playing area configurations. Fifth,
it necessitates teachers employing Mosston and Ashworth’s (2001, p. 9) more indirect
styles of teaching from the ‘productive cluster’ for much of the time with the goal of
shifting decision-making and responsibility from themselves to their students.
Although SE and TGfU share a great deal in terms of objectives and pedagogy, there
are also two important differences between the models worth noting. First, while SE has
an outward-focus on helping to forge a ‘more worthy and humane culture’ (Siedentop,
2002, p. 411) and, thus, transforming the sporting culture for the better, TGfU has an
inward focus on player competency and satisfaction and, therefore, works within the
sporting culture as it is. Second, SE has drawn its pedagogy from examinations of good
quality sporting experiences and the managerial strategies recommended by teacher effec-
tiveness researchers (Siedentop, 2002). In contrast, TGfU’s pedagogy seems to have
evolved from a combination of students’ wishes to ‘play the game’, teacher educators’
knowledge of Mosston and Ashworth’s (2001) spectrum theory, and political pressure
to produce better (i.e., more successful) elite players (e.g., Major, 1996).
Given that the general aim of both models, then, is to employ more democratic ped-
agogies and provide sporting experiences which really allow students to learn how to
play well, and considering both models attempt to realize this goal in slightly different
ways and have different foci, it would seem logical that a coalition of the two might
lead to some real pedagogical breakthroughs.
At least two scholars with interest in these models have considered them worthy of a
hybrid (Almond, 1997; Curtner-Smith, 2004). To this point, however, there has been no
published research that has attempted to investigate the effects of marrying the
two approaches of SE and TGfU. While MacPhail et al. (2003) report of a case where
SE and TGfU were taught in a sequence, they did not discuss their potential unification.
The purpose of the research reported in this paper, therefore, was to examine the
influence of a hybrid SE– TGfU unit on one class of elementary students and their
teacher. Following Rovegno et al.’s (2001) work on the teaching and learning
of tactics, the main goal of our research was to provide a detailed description of the
teacher’s experiences and the students’ reactions to a unit based on what we
termed the macro-pedagogy of SE (i.e., the structure and organization) and
the micro-pedagogy of TGfU (i.e., teaching behaviors and styles).
Method
Research design
The design of this study followed that of a teaching experiment. According to Rovegno
et al. (2001, p. 347), when employing this design, ‘researchers develop or work with a
teacher to develop a curriculum and study their teaching and the children’s responses
to the curriculum’. Specifically, teaching experiments have four foundational goals:
(a) to examine teaching, learning and subject matter as part of a complex system; (b) to
describe the learning of subject matter as it occurs in the classroom; (c) to identify, from
the teacher’s perspective, the issues, problems and challenges that arise during teaching;
and (d) to develop, refine or provide illustrations of theory (Rovegno et al., 2001).
Participants and setting

The participants in this study were 29 sixth-grade students at a middle-class primary
school in a metropolitan Australian capital. The students (11 boys and 18 girls) were
either 11 or 12 years old, with all except one being Caucasian. None of the students
had experience of SE or TGfU prior to the study. Classes met daily for 30 minutes
over a five-week period. The students were not required to dress for physical
education, although the school’s ‘no hat, no play’ policy was followed.
The first author was the primary teacher of the hybrid SE-TGfU unit, and had
significant experience in the teacher-as-researcher role with regard to Sport
Education interventions (see, for example, Hastie, 1996, 1998, 2000). The main
advantage of this position was that in an effort to see if an intervention of this
nature might work, instruction under the leadership of an expert would seem desir-
able in assessing its real potential in the fullest sense.
The first author also had complete autonomy in designing the program. From a legal
stance, he was a registered teacher in the state, and had the permission and encourage-
ment of the school’s administration as well the students’ classroom teacher, who attended
all lessons. Permission was also gained from the students to use their data for the analysis.
The SE – TGfU unit

The teacher designed a 22-lesson season on batting/fielding games (see Table 1).
Much of the content and many of the concepts included were drawn from a unit pre-
viously designed by Curtner-Smith (2004).
In congruence with the suggestions of Dyson et al. (2004), the structure of the unit
was pure SE, in that students were placed on six teams that participated in pre-season
Table 1. Season plan
Lesson Key content TGfU principles SE processes
1 Introduction and outline Three-a-side batting games Concept of persisting

of the unit Hit to space teams, roles and

Beginning Run with, or throw the ball? competition format
batting/fielding skills
2 Introduction of team Four-a-side batting games Announcement of teams
roles and Hit far or short? – development of team
responsibilities Throw ahead of the runner identity (name, color
Beginning skill practice etc.)
3– 5 Five-a-side softball rules Five-a-side softball Internal scrimmages
and practice matches Batting order? within teams
Fielding positions?
6– 8 Five-a-side softball Application of key principles League matches for
competition developed through days 1 – 5 season points. Duty
team responsibilities
9 Continuous cricket Single batter games Whole class instruction
Beginning skills practice To hit or not? and scrimmages
To run or not?
Backing up throws
10 Continuous cricket Two batter games Whole class instruction
Beginning skills practice Which end to bowl from? and scrimmages
Where to throw?
When to run?
11– 12 Five-a-side continuous Five-a-side continuous cricket Practice matches and
cricket practice Batting order? practice officiating
matches Fielding positions?
13– 15 Five-a-side continuous Application of key principles League matches for
cricket competition developed through days 9 – 11 season points. Duty
team responsibilities
16 Game design I. Synthesis of tactical Team problem-solving
Planning on paper understanding in games tasks
making
17 Game design II Synthesis of tactical Team problem-solving
Trailing in action understanding in games tasks
making
18 Game design III Synthesis of tactical Present your team’s game
Teaching the class understanding in games to the class
Class votes on favorite making
game
19– 21 Final game competition Application of tactical League matches for
understanding to a novel task season points
Duty team
responsibilities
22 Awards day Culminating event
game play, competitive leagues and a post-season tournament leading to a culminat-

ing event. Moreover, students took on as many as two roles other than player during
the course of the unit. These included equipment manager, publicity officer,
statistician, captain, umpire and scorekeeper. Specific SE processes employed
throughout the unit are outlined in the third column of Table 1.

The main pedagogical style employed, however, was pure TGfU, in that while the
students participated in small-sided games, the teacher guided them toward understand-
ing tactics and strategies by briefly stopping the action and asking questions and/or
exaggerating the need to employ certain tactics and strategies by imposing conditions,
rule changes, and equipment modifications on the game. When there was a need for
students to learn new sport-related skills, they were only taught in isolation if they could
not be mastered within game play. The tactical focus of each lesson is shown in column
2 of Table 1.
During the final stages of the season, students were asked to design their own small-
sided and modified games based on the knowledge they had acquired earlier in the
unit. When introducing this game design task, the teacher stressed that ‘a good
game’ was one that was fair, worked and was fun for both teams (see Rovegno &
Bandhauer’s 1994 expanded definition of a good game). The students were asked
to employ a play-discuss-play approach to game design and encouraged to experiment
with a variety of equipment, rules and field configurations. When they were happy
with their game they completed a game design form. This included sections
in which they recorded the game’s name, a diagram of the playing area, a list of equip-
ment needed to play, a list of rules, the scoring system and strategies and tactics that
should be employed by both fielding and batting teams. One class day was then allo-
cated for each team to present its game to the other teams, complete with a small
scrimmage. At the conclusion of that lesson, all students voted individually as to
which game they liked the most and would enjoy playing for the final mini-
competition. Voting followed a five-item forced differential response format (see
Figure 1).
Data collection
Rovegno et al. (2001) noted that teaching experiments should include a description of how
the unit of work being studied was designed, analysis of events that occurred in the
Figure 1. Game evaluation form

classroom, and systematic reflection. As a beginning point, the first author kept a reflective
log and notes about his practice throughout the season. As well as including these elements
in the present study, in line with the thinking of Holt et al. (2002), we also sought to provide
a more complete and richer description of the effects of the SE–TGfU unit by including
the voices of students. Therefore, we employed the following data collection techniques:
Critical incidents. The critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954) was used to inves-
tigate those features of the curriculum that the students viewed as significant or import-
ant during the course of the unit. Following each lesson, the students completed a
critical incident reflective sheet. Instructions for completing the sheet were similar to
those provided by O’Sullivan and Tsangaridou (1992). Students were asked to write
about ‘One thing that happened during your lesson today that you found important.
It may have been important because it made you excited, made you bored, made
you worried, or because it was something you learned that was really new. When
you have described what happened, try to explain why it was important’.
While the critical incidents technique has been used in a number of studies in phys-
ical education research, particularly those examining pre-service (e.g., O’Bryant et al.,
2000) and practicing (e.g., Parker, 1995) teachers, as far as we were aware the
technique had not been used previously to gather data from younger children.
Tactical quizzes. Students were given a total of four tactical quizzes throughout the
unit. They completed two of these during the softball mini-season and two during the
cricket mini-season. During each quiz, students were asked to solve a tactical problem
to which there was one obviously correct answer. Within three of the quizzes the
problem involved selecting correct fielding strategies, while within the fourth it involved
selecting correct batting and pitching/bowling strategies. In each quiz, students were
presented with a written scenario and asked to solve it by drawing diagrams and/or pro-
viding a written answer. During the fielding quizzes, therefore, students were asked to
come up with the best course of action that could be taken by a fielding team.
Game design forms. Copies of all game design forms were made so that they could be
analyzed by the researchers at the completion of the unit.
Team interviews. Immediately following the completion of the season, each team was
interviewed by the first author, with the intention of discovering students’ motivation
for and rationale behind the particular games they had invented and how well they
really understood these games. To this end, within a focus group format
(Fontana & Frey, 1994), each team was asked the same two lead questions although
the protocol for these group interviews allowed for multiple prompts and follow-up
questions. These lead questions were (a) ‘Tell me all about the rules of your game
and the equipment you chose to use’ and (b) ‘You have just been appointed as
coaches for the other sixth-grade class and the game you are coaching is the one
that you made up. I want you to tell me what you would do in practice to get them
to play it well and win’. All six interviews were audio-taped.
Data analysis
Initially, critical incident analysis involved sorting data into thoughts and perceptions.
Based on the work of Bell et al. (1985), a thought or perception was defined as a
statement that was conceptually consistent with a single topic or idea. Next, using
the analytic induction technique (Goetz & LeCompte, 1984), thoughts and percep-
tions were coded and placed in a series of emerging categories and subcategories.
As this process continued through four levels, some data were moved from one
category to another based on goodness of fit, category and subcategory labels were
refined or changed, and several categories were collapsed while others were subdi-
vided. Once this process was complete, the frequency of thoughts and perceptions
within each category and subcategory were computed.
Each tactical quiz was analyzed separately. The enumerative analysis (Goetz &
LeCompte, 1984) employed involved determining the number of students who
managed to provide the correct solution to the tactical problem presented in the
scenario. In addition, exemplars representing the types of written answers provided
to each quiz were selected for illustrative purposes.
Game designed forms were analyzed inductively using typological analysis (Goetz &
LeCompte, 1984) and constant comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This involved
placing data (written text and diagrams) into several categories. These were the type
and amount of equipment needed to play the game, the shape and dimensions of
the playing area, method(s) of scoring, skills, strategies and innovations. This latter
category included any game component that had not been examined in the unit
prior to the game invention phase and, thus, was an example of students’ own thinking.
We then identified commonalities across and unique components within the six games.
All six team interviews were transcribed verbatim. Data were then analyzed by
analytic induction. During several readings, each interview text was reduced to a
series of thoughts and perceptions, this time representing teams rather than individual
students. Thoughts and perceptions were then sorted into those concerned with the
process of game invention and those explaining how another team of students
might be taught to play their game well and win. The thoughts and perceptions
within each of the two themes were then coded and categorized using the same
procedure employed during the analysis of the critical incident data.
Results
Critical incidents
Four hundred and ninety-one thoughts and perceptions about the SE-TGfU unit
were coded from the critical incident reflective sheets. The frequency of these
thoughts and perceptions are shown in Table 2 within eight major categories and
45 subcategories. The vast majority of students’ general comments indicated that
they enjoyed the unit hugely. Indeed, students frequently noted that lessons were
‘great fun’, ‘good’ and ‘liked’. These sentiments were expressed throughout the
season despite some concerns about the environment, particularly that ‘it was way
Table 2. Frequency of students’ thoughts and perceptions
Lesson
Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8/9 10 11 12 13 14 15/16 17 18 19 20 Total

General comments about lessons

Enjoyed 6 1 3 5 5 0 2 1 3 4 4 7 4 0 3 1 3 2 54
OK/alright 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
Tiring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Boring 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
General comments 6 1 3 5 5 0 2 1 4 5 5 9 5 0 4 2 4 2 63
subtotal
Environmental concerns
Heat 0 6 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 16
Wind 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Insects 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Environmental 0 6 1 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 18
concerns subtotal
Opportunites to participate
Plenty 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9
Lack of 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 1 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 21
Opportunities to 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 4 5 5 4 2 1 2 1 0 0 30
participate
subtotal

Team-related
Teamwork 16 4 2 2 0 5 6 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 42
Affiliation 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 9
Selection 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
Let team down 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Team-related 16 4 9 4 0 5 6 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 55
subtotal
(continued)
Table 2. Continued
Lesson
Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8/9 10 11 12 13 14 15/16 17 18 19 20 Total

Affective
Being with friends 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Choosing partners/ 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
groups
Getting along with 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
others
Not getting along 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 5 0 17
with others
Fair play 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 12
Encourages pupils 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
who don’t
like sport
Affective subtotal 4 5 2 0 2 5 1 1 5 2 5 1 1 0 1 1 5 3 44
Skill-related
Enjoy skills 4 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 3 2 3 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 22
Learning skills 0 7 2 2 0 8 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 29
Performing skills 0 2 3 0 1 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 15
Skill-related 4 9 5 2 3 9 6 1 4 5 5 4 6 0 1 0 0 2 66
subtotal
Game-related
Enjoyed in general 9 4 2 4 9 4 4 3 5 0 5 2 0 0 3 4 2 2 62
General success 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
Specific success 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 0 1 2 0 3 14
Employing tactics/ 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 12
adapting to rules
General failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Specific failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3
Winning 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 5 5 22
Losing 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 2 4 2 13
Enjoyed because 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
small-sided
Wanted to play 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
‘real’ game
Space 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Rules 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Teacher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
participation
Game invention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 7
(þve)
Game invention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 8
(2ve)
Good game 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 4 3 17
invented
Poor game invented 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 4
Game-related 10 4 4 9 13 5 8 9 5 7 5 7 7 17 17 20 15 18 180
subtotal
Other
Exercise/fitness 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Roles 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 16
Didn’t learn 0 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8
A hybrid games model

anything new
Being alert 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
Injury 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Gender 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
Other subtotal 3 5 4 2 0 3 5 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 35
Total 44 34 30 22 24 29 29 23 25 24 26 27 28 18 25 26 26 31 491
Note: pupils wrote one critical incident for lessons 8 and 9 and lessons 15 and 16 since content in these lessons was virtually identical.
11
too hot’. Undoubtedly, one factor that promoted student enjoyment was the structure
of the season that allowed them numerous ‘turns’ to participate and, therefore, get ‘to
hit the ball heaps’. On the downside, students were quick to complain when their
opportunities to participate were limited, especially when they ‘didn’t get more
than one bat’, ‘didn’t get a good bat’ or spent too much time ‘standing around’.
As would be expected from a unit that drew heavily from the principles of SE, there
were also a lot of team-related comments made by students. Encouragingly, there were
numerous references to ‘teamwork’, especially ‘being organized’, ‘working together’
and ‘cooperating’. Additionally, and particularly in lesson 3, students suggested that
they felt an affiliation with their teams by, for example, referring to ‘our [team] name’
or ‘our [team] colour’. Conversely, a few students were not happy with team selection,
claiming that it was ‘not fair’, and one student noted that he had ‘let the team down’.
Not surprisingly, students also wrote positively about getting ‘to be with [their]
friends’ or getting ‘to play with friends’. Interestingly, following lesson 1, two students
also suggested that the structure of the unit was ‘encouraging for kids who don’t like
sport much’. Moreover, lessons, they said, had been ‘cool’ because ‘there was no
fighting’. Even more encouraging were the 12 statements about fair play, a corner-
stone of SE. Comments on this subject usually reported that teams had ‘played
fairly’, which made the experience ‘fun’. On the downside, there were 17 comments
that indicated that students did not always get along with each other. For example,
following lesson 19, there were several claims that opposing teams had ‘cheated’,
and one student noted that he ‘didn’t like it how everyone argued’.
It is also worth highlighting the fact that students deemed the roles they took on other
than player to be worthy of discussion. Following lesson 3, students noted that they ‘got
to be the publicist person’ and ‘the tactician’, while another stated ‘I liked it when we got
to choose our own jobs’. Moreover, following lessons 7 and 8, a number of students
remarked on how much they had enjoyed being ‘the umpire’ and ‘scoring’.
Throughout the season students produced 66 skill-related comments. These
expressed the pleasure they had experienced when doing skills or merely relayed
the fact that they had learned or performed skills. For example, students thought
‘running for the dome was cool’, they ‘liked batting’, ‘learned to throw long dis-
tances’, ‘throw properly’ and ‘did good hits’.
Significantly, students also made 180 game-related comments. Sixty-six of these
indicated that they had enjoyed playing games. Students noted that they ‘liked it
when [they] got to play a game at the end’ that it was ‘fun playing against classmates’,
and that they ‘had fun playing the game’. Conversely, they were unhappy when ‘the
field was too small’. There were also a handful of comments describing general and
specific successes and failures. Students, for example, explained that they had
‘learned more about the game’, ‘liked today’s game because we got lots of run’,
‘were not very good’ and ‘tripped over the hoop’.
On the upside, there were relatively few comments about winning (13 of this total of
180) and losing (one only), considering the competitive environment SE creates.
Most of these comments came towards the end of the unit as the stakes grew
higher and the culminating competition loomed larger. Moreover, most of these
comments also suggested that winning and losing were not of vital importance. Stu-
dents noted that they ‘enjoyed today because we won’ or made statements such as
‘today we flogged the Tigers, it was fun’. However, they also explained, ‘it was fun
but we lost . . . but that does not matter’ and ‘even though we lost by 15 I still had fun’.
Another positive outcome from the unit was the fact that there was only one plea ‘to
play the real game’. While only one comment specifically acknowledged that a game
had been enjoyable because ‘when we played, we only played in groups of three’, the
fact that students noted that they enjoyed game playing so frequently suggested that
most were very happy to participate in small-sided and modified games.
Game-related comments also suggested that the pedagogical principles borrowed
from the TGfU approach had influenced the students. The 12 comments about
tactics or adapting to rule changes perhaps provided the strongest evidence of this.
For example, following lesson 3, one student explained, ‘the thing I learned to do
was not hit so hard’. Similarly, following lesson 5, a student reported that he had
‘learned about loaded bases’ while, after lesson 7, another explained ‘I learned to
move in front of the runner’. Additionally, following lesson 11, students noted that
‘it is easier to run short distances than long’ and that they ‘liked the game where
you had either less and more room to run and the bowler had more and less to bowl’.
Other evidence suggesting that the TGfU approach had influenced students for the
better came from the comments about game invention in the latter stages of the unit.
As illustrated below, positive comments on this topic mostly involved students claim-
ing that the process had been enjoyable:
I thought it was fun making up a game as a team. (Lesson 15/16)
It was a good experience designing a game—it made us think. (Lesson 15/16)
I like how we created a game; we tried all different types. (Lesson 15/16)
Negative comments, on the other hand, merely suggested that the process had been
difficult but had prompted considerable thought:
It was hard making up a game by ourselves. (Lesson 15/16)
It was hard to design our own game like choosing stuff for it. (Lesson 15/16)
It was a very tricky thing of all the things to do . . . but it was a good challenge. (Lesson 15/16)
In addition, many students claimed that they had invented a ‘good game’ and, as illus-
trated below, some explained why their game was successful:
I like our game because you get heaps of points in it. (Lesson 15/16)
I like our game because we had five bases and lots of ways to score. (Lesson 15/16)
In contrast, few students experienced dissatisfaction with the game that their teams
had invented and those who did made only mildly critical comments:
I did not really like the game . . . it was too hard. (Lesson 17)
It was too hard to score. (Lesson 20)
Tactical quizzes
In the main, the students were able to provide the appropriate strategies for the
scenarios presented to them in the tactical quizzes. Sequentially, the percentages
of students providing the correct solution to each quiz were 70%, 82%, 85% and
87%. This finding suggests that students’ tactical ability improved during the
course of the unit. Further, as illustrated below, solutions to the early quizzes
tended to be relatively simple while solutions to later quizzes seemed to be compara-
tively complex:
Because if they decided to run again you could get them out. (Quiz 2)
Because it’s the closest base. (Quiz 2)
If the batter slogged it, why wouldn’t you run, especially if it went behind the wickets? (Quiz 4)
When your bowler’s throwing to the other person’s end or if the wicket-keeper misses the
ball and it goes a long way. (Quiz 4)
Game design
Analysis of the games that students designed revealed three consistent features. These
were inclusion, the incorporation of risk/reward strategies for both batting and field-
ing teams and the avoidance of problematic skills.
Inclusion. In five of the six games designed by the students, players were permitted
to choose the method by which they would bat. In all five cases, the motivation
behind this choice was to increase the opportunity for players of differing skill
levels to have success. For example, within the Butterflies’ game, batters could
hit from a tee or a self-toss with a softball bat or short-handled paddle. Similarly,
the Lightning Bolts’ rules permitted players to use cricket bats or paddles, while
within the Wallabies’ game, students could choose to kick the ball from the
ground or punt it from their hands. To further increase the chance of those
players with weaker batting skills making a successful hit, the Wallabies also
chose to widen the area in which a hit was considered fair. Finally, the rules of
the Kiwis’ game allowed a player running to the scoring base to stop halfway at
a safety base in the event of a weak hit. The aim of this safety base, the Kiwis
explained, was to allow weaker players to make a contribution to their team’s
cause.
Risk/reward strategies. Five of the six games also included rule-dictated strategic
options for both batting and fielding teams. Teams choosing the more difficult
options risked catastrophe but had the opportunity to gain more points. Teams
playing it safe and choosing the less difficult options scored fewer points if success-
ful and suffered less dire consequences if not. In the Tigers’ game, for example,
batters scored points by running to bases and back to the hitting area. Some
scoring bases were nearer to the hitting area than others. Those further from the
hitting area were more difficult to get to and, thus, were worth more points.
Likewise, the Butterflies included a ‘bonus base’ in their game that was worth two
points instead of the usual one. The trade-off was that a batter was not allowed to
stop at the ‘bonus base’ and that getting to it involved running much further.
Players, therefore, had to decide whether the greater risk of getting out was
worth the extra point.

Several teams also included a range of strategic options from which fielding teams
could choose. Again, those that were more risky yielded the greatest rewards if carried
out successfully. In the Butterflies’ game, for example, a catch on the full was
rewarded with three points, while a catch after one bounce was worth only one
point. If a player made an unsuccessful attempt to catch on the full, the opportunity
to gain one point from catching off the bounce was gone.
The Wallabies’ game also included full and one-bounce catching. In their case,
however, catches made off the bounce had to be completed with one hand. Addition-
ally, the ball used by the Wallabies was large and highly inflated. The Wallabies
explained that they had chosen to use this type of ball since, combined with their
catching rules, it encouraged fielders to move closer to the batter. The rewards for
moving closer to the batter, then, were that there was a greater possibility of
making a catch on the full and that the ball could be moved to the bases relatively
quickly. In addition, in the event that the ball was played over the fielding team, it
was still possible to turn, chase it down and catch it with one hand.
Avoidance of problematic skills. The third feature of the student-designed games was
that they avoided the use of difficult skills. For example, pitching or bowling was
always underarm because the students had such poor control when using overarm
actions. Additionally, and as alluded to in the section on inclusion, in some games
pitching was avoided altogether.
The students also tended to choose equipment and field configurations that
compensated for their lack of skill and increased their chances of doing well in
the game. For example, since most of the students had great difficulty picking
up and throwing at speed and with accuracy, as alluded to in the section on
risk/reward strategies, games which involved base-running were made easier by
using a ball that was relatively easy to throw and catch and/or by elongating
the field so that the distances between the hitting zone and the bases were rela-
tively long.
Team interviews: game design

Table 3 shows the students’ thoughts and perceptions about the process of game
invention. The table indicates that three of the six teams had a good deal to say
about this process while three did not. The table also indicates that teams had
four broad goals when designing their games. These were creating a ‘better
game’, a ‘different’ or ‘unusual’ game, compared with those that they usually
played, creating a ‘more challenging’ or ‘harder game’ and, as explained by one
Table 3. Students’ thoughts and perceptions on game invention/design during team interviews
Teams
Lightning
Categories Bolts Butterflies Wallabies Kiwis Bugs Tigers
General goals
Create a ‘better’ game B B
Create a ‘different’ game B B B
Create a challenging game B B
Incorporate favorite elements B
from other games
Specific purposes
Promote high scoring B B
Promote enjoyment B B
Promote sporting behaviour B
Promote fitness B
Promote decision-making B
Fairness/opportunity to succeed
Inclusion in general B
Equipment choices B
Rules B B B B B
Pitch dimensions B
Other
Rule explanation B
member of the Lightning Bolts, incorporating elements they had enjoyed in other
games:
We thought about the games we played and what we liked and tried to put it all together.
(Lightning Bolts member)
Members of three teams also noted that they had had a number of different specific
purposes when designing their games. Both the Lightning Bolts and the Bugs
enjoyed high scoring games and explained that they wanted to ‘add more points’
and ‘encourage . . . [teams] to get more points’ within their games. The Bugs and
the Wallabies also explained that producing an enjoyable or ‘funner’ game was one
of their main priorities. In addition, the Wallabies indicated that the promotion of
sporting behavior and wellness was important to them by making it officially illegal
to ‘yell at the ref’ and designing a game in which the object was to ‘get puffed’
because ‘it makes you more fit’. In congruence with the TGfU approach employed
in the unit, the Bugs were also interested in promoting decision-making. As one
member of this team explained, their game
encourages you to go out to the further one [i.e., base] and get more points, so you have
to make a quick fast decision on the spot. (Bugs member)
Five of the six teams also expressed concerns about fairness and, as they had done on
their game design forms, noted that a key objective was to provide opportunities for all
students to succeed. To this end, different members of the Lightning Bolts recalled that
they had tried to make their game more inclusive in general and explained
how they had partially achieved this goal by allowing players to choose the equipment
they used:
We tried to make our game as fair as it can be. (Lightning Bolts member)
Why did you use different bats? (First author)
Some people were really crappy with the cricket bat, and some were really bad with the
paddles, so [we] gave them a choice. So they could actually have a chance to hit better. . . .
[This] gave everyone a chance. (Lightning Bolts member)
In addition, the Wallabies emphasized how their pitch dimensions permitted more
students to succeed:
We made it so the two front ones [i.e., bases] were wider than the back ones cause that
was a bouncy ball it was hard to kick so we wanted to have more area so they didn’t foul
too much. (Wallabies member)
Finally, members of five teams explained how the rules of their games promoted
inclusion:
What about the one-bounce catch [rule]? (First author)
Some people can’t catch on the full, so if they try and it bounces they still have a chance.
(Lightning Bolts member)
What about the one-hand catch [rule]? (First author)
Ben did that a lot ‘cause he could not always catch it, but that helped. It bounces back
off our chest because it’s so bouncy but the one-handed catch you can still get it.
(Kiwis member)
Team interviews: coaching to win

Table 4 shows students’ thoughts and perceptions about how to play their games well
and what they would teach another team to do in order to help them win. The table
indicates that some teams were much more forthcoming on this topic than when
asked to discuss game design.
When describing how they would teach others to play their games, members from
all teams but the Butterflies began by stressing the need to explain and demonstrate
‘the rules’:
If you hit a foul, you have to go back. (Lightning Bolts member)
They have to know all the rules and how to get out and . . . they have know the rules about
how to get around the bases. (Wallabies member)
Four of the teams were adamant that, secondly, they would teach the skills needed to
play their games. This involved ‘showing them’ ‘hitting, fielding, catching, and . . .
techniques of batting’, as well as ‘how to run’, ‘throw far’ ‘and not get tagged
running’. The Lightning Bolts and the Bugs then suggested that students
should play ‘practice’ or small-sided games while the Wallabies and Tigers empha-
sized ‘playing’ the full game. In addition, members from several teams noted the
Table 4. Students’ thoughts and perceptions on how to play their games well/win during team
interviews
Teams
Lightning
Categories Bolts Butterflies Wallabies Kiwis Bugs Tigers
Rules and dimensions

Explain/demonstrate rules B B B B B
Explain/show pitch B
configuration
Instructional procedures
Demonstrate/teach/practice/ B B B B
perform skills
Play small-sided/modified B B
games
Play full game B B
Provide performance feedback B
Provide motivational feedback B B B B
Fielding strategies/tactics
Movement of base fielders B
Throwing to correct base/end B B B B B
Setting/adapting the field B B B B B B
Throwing/running with the B B B B
ball
Backing up B
Tagging runners B
Moving in B
Batting strategies/tactics
Hit over fielders B B
Hit into spaces B B B B B
Hit away from good fielders B
Hit to unexpected areas B B B
Hit away from base/end B
running towards
Hit long B B B B
Keep the ball down B B B
Keep the ball in the air B
Account for wind B
Running decisions B B B B
Other
Encourage sportsmanship B
Teamwork B
Improve fitness B
need to ‘go around when [students] are practicing and tell them their mistakes but be
encouraging’. This approach, of course, reflected the traditional skill-to-game and
direct teaching style approach that the students were used to rather than the TGfU
and indirect teaching style approach that had been employed during the unit.
Within this framework, members of all the teams also recognized the importance
of sound strategic and tactical play. As illustrated below, the most often
mentioned fielding strategy was the need to set or adapt the field for a particular
batter:
If some people kick in the same direction all the time, get there. Like Chris, he always
boots it to the right, so we moved Luke over there. (Wallabies member)
We had two out far and some in close in case they tipped it. It depended upon the kicker.
(Bugs member)
As well as adapting the field based on the strengths and weaknesses of and tactics
employed by batters, some teams stressed the importance of getting certain players
in positions that matched their skills:
Get all the good catchers out the back and all the good chuckers up the front so they
could get to the base and hit the wickets. (Wallabies member)
You’d put Scott out there because he is a good catcher. (Lightning Bolts member)
As illustrated by the quotations below, the next most often mentioned fielding strat-
egy/tactic was throwing to the correct base or end:
How did you decide where to throw? (First author)
You throw to the closest base or if they are nearly going home you throw to the wickets.
(Kiwis member)
What are some of the things that you did to win all your games? (First author)
. . . Throw to the person nearest the closest base. (Butterflies member)
Give me a specific example of that. (First author)
It depends upon where the runner is . . . If he is on second you would throw it to
third or the wickets. It depends upon how close you are. If he is just at first base,
you’d go to second, but if he was not that close, you’d go to that base. (Butterflies
member)
As well as getting the ball to the correct base or end, four of the teams also explained
that successful fielders were able to make good decisions about whether to throw or
run with the ball to a base or end:
If it’s a long way away—throw to another person rather than running with it, because the
ball normally goes faster throwing than a person that’s actually running. (Lightning Bolts
member)
Other fielding strategies/tactics mentioned less often during the interviews included
making sure that base fielders realized that they didn’t ‘have to stay on base all the
time’, ‘covering’ other fielders, chasing ‘the runner to tag them’ and ‘getting everyone
to run’ towards the hitting area.
The batting strategy most often suggested by the students was to ‘hit it where no
people are’. Other suggestions for batters included ‘hit it as hard as you can so it
goes over the fielder’s head’, ‘hit . . . away from good fielders’, ‘kick it really far’,
‘kick it low to the ground so that it’s hard to catch’, keep the ball in the air because
when it ‘bounces and comes way up from the ground . . . it’s harder to field’ and
‘when the wind’s blowing, kick it straight, because it could blow foul’. In addition,
students noted that they had success by hitting away from the base or end to which
they were running and by hitting to unexpected areas:
I always kicked to the left just near the foul because you had to run against the clock and
you could make more bases. (Kiwis member)
On your first go you could pretend you are a really bad kicker and they would come in
next time and so you could kick it over their heads. (Bugs member)
Would a small hit ever be useful? (First author)
If they thought you were a good hitter and they had all moved out. (Kiwis member)
In addition to suggesting specific hitting strategies and tactics, four of the teams also
recognized the importance of making good running decisions so that players could
‘get to base without getting out’. The Lightning Bolts, for example, noted that decid-
ing whether or not to attempt to run to the next base ‘depends on the accuracy and
throwing of the fielder’. Similarly, the Tigers followed the general tactical rule that
‘if you hit small, run close or if you hit far, run far’.
Finally, it is worth highlighting that the members of the Wallabies believed that part
of playing their game well involved showing good ‘sportsmanship’. Moreover,
members of the Butterflies noted that superior ‘teamwork’ had contributed signifi-
cantly to their success in competition, while the Bugs stressed that, to be successful,
teams should ‘get . . . fit, because there is a lot of running’.
Discussion
In congruence with Rovegno et al’s. (2001) definition of a teaching experiment, this study
examined teaching, learning and subject matter as part of a complex system. The
‘complex system’, in this case, was created by an attempt to combine SE and
TGfU and the subject matter was batting/fielding games. The discussion that follows
is based on Rovegno et al’s. (2001) final three foundational goals for teaching
experiments.
Learning the subject matter

The results of the study suggested that the students made significant gains during the
SE –TGfU unit. First, they became more competent. They responded well to the
myriad of problems they were asked to solve during small-sided game play, quizzes
and game invention sessions and, by the unit’s conclusion, were able to understand,
appreciate and execute a number of rudimentary batting, bowling/pitching and field-
ing tactics and strategies, and some which were fairly sophisticated. These findings,
then, strongly contradict Asquith’s (1989) claim that primary schoolchildren were
incapable of appreciating or learning tactical concepts. Moreover, there was some
evidence to suggest that students also improved their performance of technical skills.
Only one previous study has examined skill and tactical development during SE.
Within an ultimate Frisbee unit in which more direct teaching styles were employed,
Hastie (1998) also found that students’ technical skills improved as they sought to
master the tactical and strategic dimensions of game play. More research focusing
specifically on the processes by which students achieve these gains would obviously
be helpful.
Second, the students demonstrated improved literacy. They understood the over-
arching principles, rules and structures of batting/fielding games, appreciated their
importance, and were able to transfer them from one game to another. Particularly
impressive in this respect was their ability to include risk/reward strategies
and avoid problematic skills in the games that they invented. Moreover, they appreci-
ated and had some understanding of the roles they took on other than player and
appeared to have some idea of the basic pedagogical practices needed to teach games.
Third, the students became increasingly enthusiastic. They enjoyed the unit, were
excited and looked forward to each class. They emphasized and demonstrated team-
work, cooperation and affiliation, and reveled in the opportunity to practice and play
with their friends. Importantly, they also made valiant attempts to include all
members of the class, did not place an undue emphasis on winning and, for the
most part, recognized the importance of playing fairly and in a sporting manner.
Most tellingly, they attempted to produce, what for them, were new forms of
batting/fielding games, rather than reworking games with which they were already
familiar.
Issues, problems and challenges

Four major issues, problems and challenges were identified during the course of the
unit. In congruence with the findings of Rink (1996), the first of these was that despite
their aforementioned gains in technical competency, lack of skill, particularly in pitch-
ing/bowling, served to limit students’ ability to demonstrate tactical understanding
which they undoubtedly had. Heeding Kirk and MacPhail’s (2002) reminder that tac-
tical and technical dimensions of game play should be viewed as interdependent
rather than oppositional, in retrospect we believe that more attention to this key
enabling skill would have been beneficial.
The second issue was the limited amount of time available for instruction. Although
this unit was lengthy when compared to traditional multi-activity units, it was still dif-
ficult to attend to all the instructional and managerial tasks associated with both SE
and TGfU. Based on previous research (Hastie, 2000), we realized how important
establishing a rigorous managerial task system was if the students were to have a suc-
cessful season. In the early lessons, therefore, the first author put most of his energy
into teaching beginning class protocols, team roles and responsibilities, and how to
conduct independent team practices. Within a 30-minute lesson, of course, this
meant that TGfU-style instruction tended to get squeezed out.
Once the unit was well underway, the first author continued to find the 30-minute
lesson restrictive. In short, it put great pressure on the instructional task system. Using
Mosston and Ashworth’s (2001) productive teaching styles was time-consuming.
Students needed time to answer questions, respond to rule changes, adapt to equip-
ment and playing area modifications and design games. In addition, the teacher
needed time to move from team to team. Longer lessons or units and more experience
with this type of hybrid unit, we think, are the most logical solutions to this problem.
To achieve the former, however, requires for a significant re-thinking of the way in
which physical education is presented in primary schools. While in the UK, units
such as this in Key Stage 2 are able to occupy up to 18 hours of teaching (although
the recommended length is 8– 12 hours), in countries without a national curriculum

(e.g., the USA), there seems to be focus on curriculum breadth versus substantive
engagement in one area. Hopefully, then, this paper will again spark deep discussion
with regard to purposes of physical education.
The third challenge concerned subject matter mastery. At times, the inductive/
reactive nature of TGfU severely tested the first author’s capacity to think on his
feet and ask the next question or make the most appropriate modifications to game
equipment, rules, and field configurations. In short, we agreed with Werner et al.
(1996), who noted that teaching this way requires great skill. Given that the first
author was a very experienced teacher well versed in batting/fielding games, in con-
gruence with Rovegno (1998) and McNeill et al. (2004), we concluded that to be suc-
cessful when delivering a hybrid SE – TGfU unit, a teacher would have to possess
superior content and pedagogical content knowledge.
This conclusion, of course, also has implication for physical education teacher
education (PETE). Given that previous research has shown that pre-service teachers
struggle mightily to comprehend and execute TGFU (Randall, 2003; McNeil et al.,
2004) and, to a lesser extent, SE (Curtner-Smith & Sofo, 2004), it seems logical to
ask them to practice and master each model in isolation before attempting to
combine them. Obviously, research aimed at supporting or refuting this hypothesis
is needed.
In the introduction of this article we noted some of the similarities and differences
between SE and TGfU. Our fourth challenge, however, was to overcome a difference
between the two models we had not anticipated. Game forms in SE units are pre-
planned, fixed, and formalized. This is part of what makes the sport in SE authentic.
On the other hand, TGfU involves constantly tinkering with games in order to push
and prod students towards greater understanding. The first author’s solution to this
problem was to follow the TGfU doctrine during practice sessions but take a modified
approach during competitive phases of the season whereby, instead of conditioning
games for each team, he did so for the whole class.
Development, refinement and illustrations of theory

According to Dyson et al. (2004), the main theoretical perspective used to justify the
employment of student-centered curricular models like SE and TGfU has been con-
structivism. Citing the work of Perkins (1999), these authors reminded sport pedago-
gues that, within a constructivist approach, students must be active learners, in that
they perform tasks which involve solving problems and making decisions; social lear-
ners, in that they formulate knowledge by interacting with their peers; and creative lear-
ners, in that they discover and understand knowledge by experimenting with the
subject matter. More recently, a number of researchers (e.g., Kirk & Macdonald,
1998; Kirk & Almond, 1999; Kirk & Kinchin, 2003) have focused on one component
of constructivism known as situated learning theory. Based on Lave and Wenger’s
(1991) notion of ‘legitimate peripheral participation’ in ‘communities of practice’,
they have argued that, within physical education, students should take part in
authentic activities which are similar to those they will encounter outside of school.
Moreover, they have highlighted the influence of the cultural and social context on
what and how students learn. Based on the results of our teaching experiment, we
believe that the hybrid SE –TGfU unit was successful because it promoted active,
social and creative learning and allowed students to participate in relevant and auth-
entic sport forms which they could see were related to those occurring in the wider
community.
Moreover, we believe that the combination of SE and TGfU made our unit stron-
ger. While we agree with Dyson et al. (2004) that both models encourage a construc-
tivist approach, we see some relative strengths and weaknesses when the pure forms of
the two models are employed by themselves. As noted in the introduction, for us, SE is
an outward-focused model and, therefore, much more likely to promote social and
situated learning than the inward-focused TGfU. Conversely, TGfU is a much stron-
ger model in terms of promoting the use of indirect teaching styles and, hence, active
and creative learning.
Rink (2001) argued that it was important to find out what factors motivated
children in physical education classes. Based on our study’s results, we agree with a
number of other researchers (e.g., Werner et al., 1996; Allison et al., 2000;
Strean & Holt, 2000; Holt et al., 2002) that participating in game play is one of
these factors. Locating game play within an SE framework, however, made it that
much more legitimate. While other curricular models may not excite postmodern
children and youth (Tinning & Fitzclarence, 1992), in line with Alexander, Taggart
and Thorpe (1996), we believe that the hybrid SE-TGfU unit was culturally relevant.
Combining SE and TGfU meant that modifications had to be made to both models
so that they were compatible with each other. First, the subject matter of the unit was
a category of games (batting/fielding games) rather than a single game, as is usually
the case in SE units. In line with other advocates of TGfU (see Bunker & Thorpe,
1982; Holt et al., 2002; Dyson et al., 2004), this was because we wanted to focus
on the transfer of tactical and strategic principles from one game to another.
A second, and in our view highly successful, adaptation was to ask students to
design and vote for the game that was played in the final competitive phase of the
season. As observed previously by others (Almond, 1983; Howarth, 1989; Rovegno
& Bandhauer, 1994; Curtner-Smith, 1996), this process allowed students to create
games that were meaningful to them while promoting their active engagement with
and exploration of concepts of game play. In future, we believe that the Sports
Board, elected from the teams in a class, could be given added responsibility in
terms of settling on the final set of rules, conditions and regulations that govern
this culminating competition.
Combining the two models also appeared to change the way in which the first
author conceptualized and employed the TGfU approach. Others have suggested
that teachers follow a linear and rigid set of steps when teaching for understanding.
For example, Bunker and Thorpe (1982) and Holt et al. (2002) suggested that
teachers focus on game appreciation, tactical awareness, decision-making, skill
execution and performance, in that order. At various stages, these authors also advo-
cated the use of four pedagogical principles (Thorpe et al., 1984). These were
sampling of different types of games from one of the several classification systems avail-
able (e.g., Werner & Almond, 1990): modifying games so that they represent adult
forms but can be played by children; modifying games so that tactical problems are
exaggerated; and taking note of the tactical complexity of different types of games.
More simply, Griffin et al. (1997) advocated a three-step approach in which teachers
require students to participate in modified games that focus on a tactical problem, ask
students questions that guide them toward tactical awareness, and provide tasks
which lead students to execute skills in order to solve tactical problems. While the
first author used most of these strategies, steps and principles, his pedagogy was
much more fluid and opportunistic than any of these models suggest, and did not
follow any particular order. Moreover, as alluded to previously, and like Howarth
(1989), he found it particularly useful to focus on using Mosston and Ashworth’s
(2001) productive cluster of styles whenever appropriate and possible. As implied
by Kirk and MacPhail (2002) and Butler (1996), research which examines and
describes exactly what accomplished instructors do when teaching for understanding,
both in the pure form and when combined with SE, in terms of structure, organization
and time frames, would be useful.
At this juncture, it is important to emphasize that combining the two models did
not weaken most of the structural advantages research has suggested SE has over
more traditional curricula. While experimenting with a hybrid curriculum of her
own, Ennis (1999, p. 44) noted that these included creating a ‘sense of commu-
nity’, dispersing ownership and autonomy, and promoting ‘positive social
relations’. Similarly, drawing from the work of Seashore-Louis and Smith (1990)
and Macdonald (1999), Alexander and Luckman (2001) suggested that SE
appealed to teachers because it was empowering and led to improved relationships
with students. Hastie (2003b), on the other hand, pointed out that SE incorpor-
ated students’ social agendas without disrupting instruction. In addition,
Curtner-Smith and Sofo (2004) found that SE was favored by pre-service teachers
partly because it was compatible with their occupational socialization. Taking
advantage of SE’s broad structural and cultural appeal, then, and combining it
with other student-centered models like TGfU, might be one relatively painless
way of changing the micro-pedagogies employed by practicing and pre-service
teachers.
On the downside, and as alluded to previously, the commonly touted advantage of
SE that the teacher is ‘off center-stage’ (Alexander et al., 1996, p. 24) and no longer
the ringmaster, was partially negated during the course of the hybrid unit. While
TGfU does not place teachers ‘center-stage’ (Alexander et al., 1996, p. 39) like tra-
ditional models of games teaching, it certainly puts them closer to the action than
SE. Consequently, combining SE and TGfU placed more emphasis on the teacher
to drive and give momentum to the proceedings and, therefore, teaching was more
labor-intensive.
Finally, both Holt et al. (2002) and Dyson et al. (2004) pointed out that, to date,
TGfU and TGfU research has focused almost exclusively on psychomotor and cog-
nitive learning. Both sets of authors called for the model to be extended and noted
that it has the potential to be more ‘holistic’ and contribute to the realization of affec-
tive goals as well. We agree and believe that combining TGfU with SE forces a natural
shift toward considering cultural and social outcomes. As illustrated by Curtner-
Smith (2004), we also see the potential for expanding the concept of understanding
within a hybrid SE-TGfU unit so that students critically examine components of
sport which are concerned with literacy and enthusiasm.
References
Alexander, K. & Luckman, J. (2001) Australian teachers’ perceptions and uses of the sport
education curriculum model, European Physical Education Review, 7(3), 243 – 267.
Alexander, K., Taggart, A. & Thorpe, S. (1996) A spring in their steps? Possibilities for professional
renewal through sport education in Australian schools, Sport, Education and Society, 1, 23– 46.
Allison, P. C., Pissanos, B. W. & Turner, A. P. (2000) Preservice physical educators’ epistemologies
of skillfulness, Journal of Teaching Physical Education, 19, 141 –161.
Almond, L. (1983) Games making, Bulletin of Physical Education, 19(1), 32– 35.
Almond, L. (1997) Physical education in the schools (London, Logan Page).
Asquith, A. (1989) Teaching games for understanding, in: A. Williams (Ed.) Issues in physical
education for primary years (Philadelphia, PA, Falmer Press).
Bell, R., Barrett, K. R. & Allison, P. C. (1985) What preservice physical education teachers see in an
unguided, early field experience, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 4, 81 – 90.
Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools, Bulletin of
Physical Education, 18(1), 5– 8.
Butler, J. (1996) Teacher responses to Teaching Games for Understanding, Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation & Dance, 67(9), 17– 20.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. (1996) Teaching for understanding: using games invention with elementary
children, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 67(3), 33 – 37.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2004) A hybrid sport education-games for understanding striking/fielding
unit for upper elementary pupils, Teaching Elementary Physical Education, 15(5), 7 –16.
Curtner-Smith, M. D. & Sofo, S. (2004) Preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching within sport
education and multi-activity units, Sport, Education and Society, 9, 347 – 377.
Dyson, B., Griffin, L. & Hastie, P. (2004) Theoretical and pedagogical considerations for imple-
menting sport education, tactical games, and cooperative learning instructional models,
Quest, 56, 225 – 239.
Ennis, C. D. (1996) Students’ experiences in sport-based physical education: (more than) apologies
are necessary, Quest, 48, 453 – 456.
Ennis, C. D. (1999) Creating a culturally relevant curriculum for disengaged girls, Sport, Education
and Society, 4, 31 – 49.
Flanagan, J. C. (1954) The critical incident technique, Psychological Bulletin, 4, 327– 358.
Fontana, A. & Frey, J. H. (1994) Interviewing: the art of science, in: N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds) Handbook of qualitative research (London, Sage), 361 – 376.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research
(Chicago, IL, Aldine).
Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. (1984) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (San
Diego, CA, Academic Press).
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A. & Oslin, J. L. (1997) Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games
approach (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).
Hastie, P. A. (1996) Student role involvement during a unit of sport education, Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 16, 88 – 103.
Hastie, P. A. (1998) Skill and tactical development during a sport education season, Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 368 – 379.

Hastie, P. A. (2000) An ecological analysis of a sport education season, Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 19, 355 – 273.
Hastie, P. A. (2003a) Teaching sport within physical education, in: S. Silverman & C. Ennis (Eds)
Student learning in physical education: applying research to enhance instruction (2nd edn)
(Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics), 227– 240.
Hastie, P. A. (2003b) Teaching for lifetime physical activity through quality high school physical education
(San Francisco, CA, Benjamin Cummings).
Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B. & Bengoechea, E. G. (2002) Expanding the teaching games for under-
standing model: new avenues for future research and practice, Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 21, 162 – 174.
Howarth, K. (1989) Games teaching, Bulletin of Physical Education, 25(2), 29– 35.
Kirk, D. & Almond, L. (1999) Sport education as situated learning in physical education: making
links to citizenship, leadership, and critical consumerism, paper presented at the AIESEP
International Congress, Besancon, France, April.
Kirk, D. & Kinchin, G. (2003) Situated learning as a theoretical framework for sport education,
European Physical Education Review, 9, 221– 235.
Kirk, D. & Macdonald, D. (1998) Situated learning in physical education, Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 17, 376 – 387.
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.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (New York,
Cambridge University Press).
Macdonald, D. (1999) The professional work of experienced physical education teachers, Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 41 – 55.
MacPhail, A., Kirk, D. & Griffin, L. (2003) Conceptions of game play through TGfU and SE, paper
presented at the Second International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education for
Understanding, Melbourne, Australia, December.
Major, J. (1996) Sport—raising the game: response from the Prime Minister, British Journal of
Physical Education, 27(3), 5.
McNeill, M. C., Fry, J. M., Wright, S. C., Tan, W. K. C., Tan, K. S. S. & Schempp, P. G. (2004) ‘In
the context’: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum, Sport, Education and
Society, 9, 3– 32.
Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S. (2001) Teaching physical education (San Francisco, CA, Benjamin-
Cummings).
O’Bryant, C. P., O’Sullivan, M. & Raudensky, J. (2000) Socialization of prospective physical
education teachers: the story of new blood, Sport, Education and Society, 5, 177– 193.
O’Sullivan, M. & Tsangaridou, N. (1992) What undergraduate physical education majors learn
during a field experience, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 381 – 392.
Parker, J. (1995) Secondary teachers’ views of effective teaching in physical education, Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 14, 127 –139.
Perkins, D. (1999) The many faces of constructivism, Educational Researcher, 57, 6 –11.
Randall, L. (2003) Preservice teachers’ understanding of the teaching games for understanding
approach to content delivery, Avante, 9(1), 49 –61.
Rink, J. E. (1996) Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games [monograph], Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 397 – 416.
Rink, J. E. (2001) Investigating assumptions of pedagogy, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

20, 112 –128.
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– 162.
Rovegno, I. & Bandhauer, D. (1994) Child-designed games—experience changes teachers’

conceptions, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 65(6), 60 – 63.
Rovegno, I., Nevett, M. & Babiarz, M. (2001) Learning and teaching invasion-game tactics in 4th
grade: introduction and theoretical perspective, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20,
345– 351.
Seashore-Louis, K. & Smith, B. (1990) Teacher working conditions, in: P. Reyes (Ed.) Teachers and
their workplace: commitment, performance and productivity (Newbury Park, CA, Sage).
Siedentop, D. (1994) Sport education (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).
Siedentop, D. (2002) Sport Education: a retrospective, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21,
409– 418.
Strean, W. B. & Holt, N. L. (2000) Players’, coaches’, and parents’ perceptions of fun in youth sport,
Avante, 6, 84– 98.
Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. & Almond, L. (1984) Four fundamentals for planning a games curriculum,
Bulletin of Physical Education, 20(1), 24– 29.
Tinning, R. & Fitzclarence, L. (1992) Postmodern youth culture and the crisis in Australian second-
ary school physical education, Quest, 44, 287 – 303.
Werner, P. & Almond, L. (1990) Models of games education, Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 61(4), 23 – 27.
Werner, P., Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1996) Teaching games for understanding: evolution of a
model, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 28 – 33.

2010 Híbrido MED - TGFU

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 Híbrido MED - TGFU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UC]

On: 30 November 2011, At: 07:42

Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy

Influence of a hybrid Sport Education—Teaching Games

Available online: 23 Jan 2007

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408980500466813

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

Influence of a hybrid Sport

ISSN 1740-8989 (print); ISSN 1742-5786 (online)=06=010001–27

Keywords: Child-designed games; Critical incident; Elementary physical education; Games

from dissatisfaction with a focus on technique at the expense of understanding tactics

the micro-pedagogy of TGfU (i.e., teaching behaviors and styles).

Participants and setting

The SE – TGfU unit

Table 1. Season plan

Lesson Key content TGfU principles SE processes

1 Introduction and outline Three-a-side batting games Concept of persisting

of the unit Hit to space teams, roles and

game play, competitive leagues and a post-season tournament leading to a culminat-

throughout the unit are outlined in the third column of Table 1.

Figure 1. Game evaluation form

Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8/9 10 11 12 13 14 15/16 17 18 19 20 Total

General comments about lessons

A hybrid games model 9

Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8/9 10 11 12 13 14 15/16 17 18 19 20 Total

A hybrid games model

worth the extra point.

Team interviews: game design

Categories Bolts Butterflies Wallabies Kiwis Bugs Tigers

Team interviews: coaching to win

Rules and dimensions

Learning the subject matter

Issues, problems and challenges

the recommended length is 8– 12 hours), in countries without a national curriculum

Development, refinement and illustrations of theory

Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69, 368 – 379.

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

Rovegno, I. & Bandhauer, D. (1994) Child-designed games—experience changes teachers’

You might also like