Teaching teachers to play and teach games

This study was designed to determine the extent to which a technical and a tactical approach to teaching a basketball unit to physical education teacher education (PETE) students would each affect their games playing abilities, perceived ability to teach, and approach preference forteaching the game. Pre- and post-unit data were collected through videotape of half-court games play, questionnaire and an eight-lesson planning assignment, submitted by the students at unitend.
Within-group adjusted multiple t tests revealed that the tactical group participants improved
significantly in their overall games playing abilities (skill execution, decision-making and
support). They also significantly improved on self-rated questionnaire items pertaining to their
perceived abilities to teach tactics and strategies as well as to use their basketball skills in a games situation. The technical group participants did not improve significantly in their overall games playing abilities but did improve their overall perceived abilities to apply their basketball skills in games settings. Whereas 80% of the technical group (n ¼ 15) chose the tactical approach, the tactical group (n ¼ 15) unanimously applied a tactical approach in their lesson design.

Keywords: Teaching; Games; Physical education teacher education



In recent years there has been some debate among physical education academics
(McMorris, 1998) about the best way to teach games to pupils from their late
primary years through secondary schooling. The dominant, traditional pedagogical
approach in physical education (PE) has been referred to as technical (or behaviouristic)
games teaching (TGT) and is characterized, perhaps unfairly, by its prescription
of isolated drills and de-contextualized practices (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986).
Essentially, the questioning of games teaching has transpired because physical educationalists
have become knowledgeable about, and interested in, alternative tactical
or constructivist approaches that have mainly originated from Bunker and Thorpe’s
teaching games for understanding, the ‘TGfU’ (1982). Although first conceptualized
in the late 1960s at Loughborough University, the TGfU was initially slow to catch on
elsewhere (Holt et al., 2002). Recent writings in journals such as the European Journal
of Physical Education (McMorris, 1998; Mitchell & Oslin, 1999; Turner et al., 2001),
Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance (Berkowitz, 1996; Butler, 1996;
Oslin, 1996; Turner, 1996; Hopper, 2002; Wilson, 2002) and in the Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education (French, Werner, Rink et al., 1996; French, Werner, Taylor
et al., 1996; Griffin & Placek, 2001; Holt et al., 2002; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002), as well
as two international conferences devoted to TGfU-related approaches (2001 in New
Hampshire, USA and 2003 in Melbourne, Australia), suggest that interest in its
varied applications is becoming more prevalent among PETE faculty. A games
concept approach, the ‘GCA’ (Ministry of Education, 1999), is the particular
TGfU-derived application that is the focus of this study. However, there remains
some resistance among field practitioners (McNeill et al., 2004).
The rationale behind the TGfU has been espoused in great detail (Bunker &
Thorpe, 1982, particularly; Butler, 1996; Oslin, 1996; Turner, 1996; Werner et al.,
1996; McMorris, 1998; Almond, 2001; Kirk & MacPhail, 2002; Griffin & Sheehy,
2004). Therefore it requires no further expansion, other than our reminding
readers that the TGfU focuses on teaching games through a conceptual approach,
through concepts, tactics and strategies rather than through a basis of skill, a
technical games teaching approach, or TGT. As with the TGfU, the GCA’s ‘understanding’
focus is developed through small-sided, situational games, whereby pupils
will typically be given opportunities to play a game at lesson-beginning as well as at
lesson-end (Griffin et al., 1997). Skills are not neglected, but should, as necessary,
come into focus in response to the lesson’s opening situational game. Then, a
teacher-led question and answer period focusing on the pupils’ performance follows
this game (Griffin et al., 1997). Ideally, this process should encourage pupils to think
not only about what they did and why, but also about how they might improve
their play through better decision-making. When a skills practice session, based on
how the pupils performed in the initial game follows, pupils are led to appreciate
the relevance of such practice. It is important that this practice phase is developmental
and occurs in a contextualized games form (Almond, 2001; Kirk, 2001; Launder,
2001). Pupils are then given opportunities to apply what they have learned in a
concluding game, similarly structured, or conditioned, as the lesson’s opening.
Although TGT and TGfU approaches involve game play and skill development,
their lesson emphases differ. There have been a number of studies that have compared
technical with tactical teaching outcomes. Several have revealed that there were no
differences between tactical and technical groups when skills execution was examined
within games settings (Turner & Martinek, 1992; Griffin et al., 1995; Mitchell et al.,
1995; Turner, 1996). However, having found that tactical participants executed skills
better within a games setting than did technical counterparts, Turner and Martinek
(1999) suggested that inconsistency in results could be due to variation of intervention
duration across such studies.
Early investigations of decision-making in games teaching have had mixed findings.
Although some indicated that there were no statistical differences between tactical
and technical groups concerning their ability to make decisions in a game situation
(Turner & Martinek, 1992; Mitchell et al., 1995), others found tactical groups to be
superior in this aspect of play (Turner, 1996; Turner & Martinek, 1999).
A study of teaching tennis to undergraduate adult beginners, and the only study
that we found related to undergraduates’ exposure to the tactical approach, found
that those taught through a technical approach improved both technically and tactically
(McPherson & French, 1991). A second group taught from a tactical perspective
improved tactically but not technically until the second half of the unit when direct
skill instruction commenced, but that improvement was not significant.
While much has been written comparing technical and tactical approaches to
teaching games, the focus of this study will be to examine each approach independently
and from the perspective of a population that has been lacking in the literature
up till now—that of PETE students.
Theoretical perspective
The underpinning theoretical perspective of this study is one of situated learning, particularly
as related to adults. This perspective implies that, rather than acquired in a
de-contextualized environment, knowledge and skills are best learned in classrooms in
ways that make sense in workplace environments (Stein, 1998). In other words, skills
and knowledge are best taught and learned in social contexts that resemble real-life
(Lankard, 1995). Moreover, Brown and co-workers (1989) suggested that adult educators
should reduce their roles as content transmitters and become learning facilitators,
promoting the notion of cognitive apprenticeships. Within this process, teachers
make learning explicitly relevant through their setting problems that require adult
learners to discuss, reflect and evaluate among, and for, themselves. Authors of
TGfU-related studies have also mentioned the relevance of the situated learning perspective
(Langley & Knight, 1996; Kirk et al., 2000; Rovegno et al., 2001), albeit with
younger participants than those in our study. Kirk and MacPhail (2002) have argued
that the TGfU model should be considered and interpreted more specifically from a
situated learning perspective. Indeed, see McNeill et al. (2004) for how this notion is
taken up in a study of student teachers’ using a tactical approach on practicum. Other
pertinent issues related to such a revision will be addressed later in this paper. Important
from our view is the contention that PETE students’ prior knowledge and experiences
need to be carefully considered in order to help them deconstruct deeply held
beliefs about games teaching practices (Kirk, 1986). Dewar (1989) found PETE students
to be products of technical PE and sports backgrounds as was the context of our
study (McNeill et al., 2004). She also suggested that undergraduates were satisfied
with those experiences and would choose a custodial approach to teaching and so
maintain the PE status quo of a teacher-driven, technical paradigm. Our argument
is that, if PETE students experience only TGT approaches in their undergraduate
classes and do not have opportunities to appreciate games teaching from a tactical,
understanding perspective, they will likely reproduce the failures of the traditional
approach to which Bunker and Thorpe (1986) alluded. Ennis (1996) also expressed
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 63
concern that pupils were being turned off sports as a consequence of inconsiderate
teachers who were elitist and trapped in a perennialist cycle.
Purpose
Although much has been written about TGfU in relationship to school pupils’ learning
to play, little has been recorded about its use among PETE students. Our study was
designed to investigate teaching approach influences on selected adult player and
teachers’ behaviours, knowledge and values. Its purpose was therefore to determine
the extent to which two different games teaching approaches, specifically (a) tactical
and (b) technical, affected the game playing ability, perceived ability to teach, preferred
teaching approach and lesson design among 30 final year PETE students.
Methods
Although other investigators have compared the efficacy of technical versus tactical
approaches to teaching games (McPherson & French, 1991; Berkowitz, 1996;
Turner, 1996), our intent was to examine each one’s independent worth. We agree
with Rink (2001) and Holt et al. (2002) that research should move beyond the
debate about which is better and focus on that which occurs in the teaching/learning
processes of these approaches. Essentially, this was a quasi-experimental within-group
study. Our major intention of separately using the approaches was to understand how
each facilitated PETE students’ abilities to play the game (basketball) from execution,
decision-making and support perspectives. Rather than test competence in isolated
skills, we chose to situate practical assessment in games performance. Making
decisions involved the selection of appropriate choices regarding possession of the
ball during a game, and support referred to off-the-ball movements that positioned
a player to receive the ball (Oslin et al., 1998). Secondly, participants’ perceived abilities
to performand teach skills, tactics and strategies, as well as a stated preference for
either a technical or tactical approach for teaching basketball, were determined
through questionnaires. Thirdly, to ascertain a preference for a tactical or technical
approach in students’ planning pertaining to teaching basketball, the study drew on
a course assessment task. Inductive analysis of the assignment led us to consider
issues related to the students’ socialization with regard to TGfU-like approaches.
Ethical approval was gained from the department’s research review committee. The
methods explanation is divided into four parts. Initially, we have described the participants.
Next detailed is the intervention, a basketball unit in two forms: (a) technical
games teaching approach (TGT) and (b) tactical games teaching approach (the
GCA). Then we outline data collection techniques and analysis procedures related
to the phenomena of interest—games playing ability and understanding, perceived
teaching competence, and preferences for teaching and planning.
The participants
The teacher. Steve, lead author, could well be described as an expert teacher/coach. He
has had vast playing and coaching experience. Prior to moving into PETE 12 years
64 S. Wright et al.
earlier as a PE and coach education specialist, he had taught secondary PE and
coached basketball for 11 years. In recent years, he had frequently taught a similar
basketball unit to students in a parallel PETE programme. His critical teachingfriend
was a specialist in GCA teaching, Mike, the second author, had a complementary
playing, teaching and coaching background, albeit not in basketball. Potential
bias came through the ‘triple threat’ of Steve’s being researcher/teacher/student-assessor.
In our outlining the study the students were told that research participation was
voluntary and consent could be withdrawn at anytime without penalty.
The students. This investigation drew on two discrete mixed-gender groups of final
year, PETE students, totalling 19 men and 11 women who were enrolled in the
basketball unit. One group comprised 10 men and 5 women, the other 9 men and
6 women. One group experienced learning basketball through a TGT approach,
the other through the GCA. The participants were unknown to Steve, who mainly
taught in another PETE programme. Equally, class assignment to teaching approach
was random because university administrators had designated entry students to
specific cohorts, each with their respective class schedule. Thereby, they were
required to stay in the particular group within their programme, as in this case secondary
school PETE. All participants volunteered written informed consent. These
participants’ PE schooling experiences had typically been through direct teaching
approaches, mainly drill-like instruction (McNeill et al., 2004). In terms of their university
course work, most practically focused modules, designed to develop content
knowledge, were also taught through a TGT approach. The participants had taken
three previous modules that dealt with team games, including soccer, volleyball
taught by our fourth author, and field hockey. Analysis of course materials and our
discussions with teaching staff confirmed that all had had a technical bias. These
PETE students had also been formally exposed to teaching games through a functional,
prescriptive pedagogy in their first of two teaching methods modules
because the department’s course review team had perceived it to present a strong
foundation for management and organization procedures on which a conceptual
approach could later build. With Mosston (1966)/Mosston and Ashworth’s (2002)
notion of teacher-centred styles and pre-discovery threshold as the structural organizer
and dominant pedagogical theory, that academic module had emphasized direct
teaching strategies and included a school-based teaching experience. However, all
students had also experienced a tactical/conceptual approach in two units prior to
the current investigation. One had specifically dealt with the principles of games
from the TGfU perspective of invasion, net/wall, and fielding/run scoring categories
(Almond, 1986). The other was their second pedagogical module that had focused
on indirect teaching modes, particularly the GCA as specified in the national
school PE syllabus (Ministry of Education, 1999; Tan & Tan, 2000). Using teaching
styles on the ‘student-centred’ side of the discovery threshold (Mosston & Ashworth,
2002), it had emphasized teaching games through a conceptual approach that
included concepts, tactics, strategies and sporting behaviours. It also included a
reflective, micro-teaching component in schools. Therefore, all of these participants
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 65
had been engaged theoretically and practically by both TGTand GCA approaches.
The basketball modules, the activity context for the current investigation, differed
from the norm of TGT in that one of the two cohorts was randomly ‘assigned’ to
the TGfU-related mode.
The basketball unit(s)
The unit ran twice weekly for nine weeks. Its objectives for both groups were to
develop (a) knowledge of basketball and perceived confidence in teaching skills,
tactics and strategies related to the game, (b) abilities to play basketball, and (c)
planning skills for teaching basketball in schools.
Whether to teach only tactics to one group and only techniques to the other or
address techniques and tactics to both was a design issue (French, Werner, Rink
et al., 1996).We decided that the PETE participants would ultimately be responsible
for teaching basketball techniques as well as its tactics. Therefore, both games dimensions
were included for each cohort, but strict adherence to either a behaviourist or a
constructivist teaching perspective (Macdonald, 2004) retained a clear distinction
between the two cohorts’ experiences.
Fidelity to teaching guidelines, in this case the teaching approach, was achieved
through researcher collaboration. Steve and Mike met before the study began to
determine appropriate unit plans for both approaches. Subsequently, daily lesson
plans were constructed and reviewed and Steve accordingly taught the classes. As a
safeguard, the tactical and technical lessons were independently observed on six
occasions. The authors conferred after these classes were taught and were satisfied
that the tactical and technical approaches were faithfully delivered. There are a
number of derivatives of the TGfU; we chose Griffin et al.’s (1997) three-phase
lesson structure sequence in an attempt to provide some consistency with the employment
context. Their tactical games teaching text was in wide use in the school district
and members of Griffin’s team had provided in-service to local teachers soon after the
PE syllabus launch. Needless to say, we were also familiar with their perspective.
Their model had also been used in TGfU-related modules previously described.
A unit-planning task—lesson descriptions and their rationale—was one aspect of
the module assessment that accounted for 25% of their final grade. The eight
lessons were to be of 45-minute duration, and targeted at Grade 8 level pupils. The
third author, who was the lecturer for both prior pedagogy modules, provided input
into this assessment task. During the course of the semester, Steve and the research
assistant (RA) assured both cohorts that their chosen teaching approach was immaterial
to their grade.
The TGT unit initially addressed offensive skills through Steve’s teaching drills
related to dribbling, passing and shooting, as well as on- and off-the-ball defensive
skills and blocking out when rebounding, loosely described as ‘practice’, ‘reciprocal’
and ‘inclusion’ styles (Mosston & Ashworth, 2002). After 10 sessions, the content
progressed to small-sided 2 versus 2 and half-court games when tactics, such as the
‘pick and roll’ and the ‘give and go’, were introduced from a ‘how-to-do’ perspective.
66 S. Wright et al.
Content further progressed to 3 versus 3, then 4 versus 4, before he introduced offensive
and defensive strategies for 5 versus 5 through demonstration and explanation.
Interspersed around the game activities were skills development revisions and extensions
that were content-centred and again presented through direct instruction. His
questioning of students was also focused on ‘how’ to do particular skills. For
example, when Steve observed a ‘pick and roll’ he would stop and ask a student
who had set the pick, how to roll after the person with the ball had dribbled past.
He would then have them execute the pick and roll again until effectively done.
Alternatively, the GCA unit engaged participants in concepts such as ‘maintaining
possession of the ball’, ‘attacking the goal’ and ‘defending space’ (Griffin et al., 1997).
Skills were taught from a ‘why’ perspective as they became relevant to the performance
of students in their game play; they were developed in contextualized game scenarios
that promoted problem solving and decision-making capabilities. Similarly, smallsided
games also progressed to full-team play. A major focus for the GCA cohort
was questioning that was embedded in games play; for example, Steve stopped a
group in ‘freeze frame’ in order to probe players’ decisions regarding their on- and
off-the-ball movements. He then asked them to compare the relative worth of tactical
solutions in their following games play. ‘When player A sets a pick for player B, who has
the ball, where should player C move to, and why?’ Once answers were given and
discussed, Steve followed up with, ‘Try it out in your play and be ready to talk about
how well each one worked.’ Questioning also occurred after the opening game and
following the closing game in every lesson. See Table 1 for specific content taught in
each session.Week-by-week the relative GCA and TGT lessons varied, but they eventually
came together in session 17 when both groups were playing full-court, 5 versus 5
games that were respectively designed for problem-raising and feedback-providing
sessions. Steve set aside time for teams to discuss their performance on specific tasks
and encouraged players to give each other feedback.
Data collection techniques
Several methods were used to collect pre- and post-unit data. First, in order to determine
their game playing abilities, the participants were videotaped for 15 minutes
while playing small-sided games of half-court basketball. The same combinations of
players and contestant teams were engaged for unit-beginning and unit-end games.
Front- and back-numbered bibs (pinnies) were worn to aid player identification
during videotape analyses. All participants (except one) were present for every data
collection session and attended at least 88% of the 18 basketball lessons.
Second, we designed a questionnaire probing participants’ confidence levels in
demonstrating, explaining and teaching skills, strategies and tactics to pupils. The
questions used 5-point Likert scales with 1 ¼ not confident at all, to 5 ¼ very
confident. A final item called for a preferred approach to teaching basketball in an
upcoming teaching practicum. Responses indicating a technical preference were
coded 1, and tactical preferences were coded 2; therefore 1.5 represented the point
for discrimination. A panel of four experts, all PETE pedagogy researchers, reviewed
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 67
Table 1. Basketball content for tactically-taught and technically-taught lessons
Lesson
no
Tactical Group—tactical game, followed by
skills (in parenthesis) then another tactical game
Technical Group—skills only
or followed by tactical game
1 Entry level assessment 4v4 half court game
[video] Conceptual Focus (Focus)—What
skills are necessary for maintaining
possession?
2v2, passing, no dribbling (triple threat
position, pivot, ball fake)
Entry level assessment 4v4 half
court game [video]
Ball handling exercises,
dribbling, shielding
2 Focus—What is the role of predictability in
passing?
Cross-over, pivot and behindthe-
back dribble
Maintaining possession in 2v2, passing, no
dribbling (chest, bounce, shoulder pass) 2v2
maintain possession
3 Focus—Think of what is necessary to receive a
pass comfortably!
Defensive position and shuffle
on ball, 1v1
Maintaining possession, 2v2, passing, no
dribbling (support off the ball) 3v1, maintain
possession
4 Focus—Look for ways to shield the ball during
possession!
Shooting form, set shot, jump
stop
Maintaining possession, 2v2, dribble or pass
(protecting the ball when dribbling) 2v2,
maintain possession
5 Focus—Think of what it takes to win the ball! Power lay-up, lay-up
Defence, covering/pressuring the ball, 2v2,
dribble or pass to maintain possession
(defence on ball) 2v2 win the ball
6 Focus—How do you support the ball-hustler?
Defence, covering off the ball, 2v2, dribble or
pass to maintain possession (defence off the
ball) 2v2 win the ball
Jump stop into jump shot,
catch and shoot
7 Focus—How can you improve your availability
to receive?
Station work pertaining to
skills previously taught
Creating space, 2v2, passing only (sharp cuts off
the ball) 2v2 maintain possession, mobility
8 Focus—Think of ways to penetrate the defence!
Attacking the basket, 2v2, passing, dribbling
(dribble penetration) 2v2 penetration
Chest, bounce, skip, and
baseball passes
9 Focus—When and where can you shoot
confidently from?
Passing on the run, finish with
lay-up, weave
Attacking the basket, 2v2, passing, dribbling,
shooting (shooting form) 2v2 scoring
10 Focus—What can you do to threaten a defence?
Attacking the basket, 2v2, passing, dribbling,
shooting (power lay-up, lay-up) 2v2, scoring
from in close
2v1 passing drill, triple threat,
use of pivot, ball fake, then
shooting drill
(continued)
68 S. Wright et al.
the drafted questionnaire and judged it apt in targeting the intended participants’
perspectives on the dimensions of interest. Given that this process determined face
validity, a research assistant (RA) piloted it among 15 PETE students who were
not part of the study. Thus we substantiated that the questions were clearly and
unambiguously written. The RA administered the inventory at unit-beginning and
at unit-end. One absent participant failed to complete the pre-course questionnaire
and therefore was not part of the pertaining data analysis.
Table 1 Continued
Lesson
no
Tactical Group—tactical game, followed by
skills (in parenthesis) then another tactical game
Technical Group—skills only
or followed by tactical game
11 Focus—What kind of tactic will assist in
breaking down a defence?
Attacking the basket, 2v2, passing, dribbling,
shooting (give and go, jump shot) 2v2 scoring
3v1 passing drill, emphasis on
support, (2v2 possession)
12 Focus—Besides the ‘give-and-go’, what other
tactics might support team play?
Station work pertaining to
skills previously taught
Creating space and attacking the basket, 2v2,
passing, dribbling, shooting (pick and roll)
2v2 scoring off the pick
13 Focus—How can we prevent scoring?
Defending space, 2v2, passing, dribbling,
shooting (defending against pick and roll) 2v2
preventing scoring
(2v2, creating space and
attacking the basket with
pick and roll)
14 Focus—Do we know enough tactics to break
down a defence time after time?
(2v2, pick and roll, and
defence against it)
Creating space and attacking the basket, 3v3,
passing, dribbling, shooting (pass and pick
away from ball) 3v3 scoring off the pick
15 Focus—What alternatives do extra players
offer?
Maintaining possession, 4v4, passing,
cutting, picking (post/guard play off ball) 4v4
possession
Defensive and offensive
rebounding (3v3 pass and
pick away)
16 Focus—How well can we cover our opponents?
Creating space and attacking the basket, 5v5
man-to-man offence and defence, full court
(4v4 passing, pick away and
shooting, no dribbling)
17 Focus—Is the alternative to man-to man
effective?
(5v5 full court, man defence
and offence)
Creating space and attacking the basket, 5v5,
2-1-2 zone offence and defence, full court
18 Focus—How can we create advantageous
numbers by attacking quickly after a steal?
Using space in attack, 5v5, transition (fast
break 2v1 and 3v2) 4v4 half court game
[video]
(5v5 full court, zone defence
and offence), [4v4 half court
game video]
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 69
Third, the planning assignment was submitted on the last day of instruction. From
students’ responses we determined their preferences for and ability to plan a basketball
unit through either a TGTor TGfU approach.
Data analysis
Pre- and post unit videotaped games play were analysed using the Game Performance
Assessment Instrument (GPAI; Oslin et al., 1998) in order to determine the participants’
abilities to perform three tasks within a games framework, namely, proficiently
execute skills, make apt decisions, and offer off-the-ball support to team mates. A
cluster of eight randomly selected players from each cohort (Tn ¼ 16) had their
games play performance analyzed. Each game lasted 15 minutes. The pre- and post
unit GPAI results were also compared using t tests. The Bonferroni error adjustment
was used, and the resulting significance level was set at p ¼ .0125.
Participants were rated according to Oslin et al.’s (1998) criteria. Apt decisions
pertained to whether a player appropriately or inappropriately either passed to an
open team mate or attempted a shot at the basket. Support categories were similar
and pertained to whether the focus player made an effort to move into an open position
that created a passing lane for the team mate with the ball. The skill execution
component included passing, receiving and shooting. A pass was considered efficient
if the ball reached its target. An efficient reception was coded if the player controlled
the pass. Oslin et al. (1998) explicated their GPAI assessment criteria in the context of
soccer, but the skills execution criteria for shooting are slightly different in basketball.
Therefore, Richard and Griffin’s (2001) definitions were used for this component. A
shot was considered efficient if either the basket was made or the ball hit the rim.
Because dribbling gives basketball its unique character and is central to some strategies
such as the ‘triple threat position’, we added a dribbling component that was
considered efficient if the player gained an advantage over the guarding opponent.
The GPAI also provides an overall game performance score by averaging the sum
of the Decisions Made Index (DMI), the Skill Execution Index (SEI) and the
Support Index (SI) (Oslin et al., 1998). The two lead authors and the RA were
familiar with the GPAI and all independently coded multiple 5-minute segments of
videotape. Categorizing DMI and SEI components was straightforward, with little
or no discrepancies between coders.
However, discriminating the SI category was initially more challenging.We decided
that not only could there be either appropriate or inappropriate determinations for
when an offensive player was off the ball, but also a neutral coding was possible.
This occurred when the player in question was in an open supportive position but
did not move to that position and did not receive the ball. Furthermore, there were
times when the coded player was not supporting the ball but was not one pass away
from the team mate with the ball and therefore could have obstructed a team mate
who was moving into a position to support. As Oslin et al. (1998) pointed out,
when a basketball game is played with more than two players on a team, there is
always an opportunity for a player not to support the ball: when we coded support
70 S. Wright et al.
as ‘neutral’, it simply did not enter into the appropriate/inappropriate equation for the
SI calculation. Following the trial coding phase, the three analysts proceeded to
analyse six 5-minute segments of videotape, and were in 90% agreement across all
three components. This provided an acceptable level of inter-coder reliability as
Oslin et al. (1998) had determined that above 80% was the threshold for reliability.
For each cohort, the pre- and post-questionnaires’ data relating to perceived confidence
levels of demonstrating, explaining and teaching the skills, strategies and tactics
of basketball were analyzed using paired sample t tests. This method was chosen
because we took the pre- and post-data summary statistics for within-group comparisons.
To reduce error, a Bonferroni adjustment was again used. In this instance the
significance level tightened from p ¼ .05 to p ¼ .0083.
Lesson plans from the assignment were categorized as either ‘technical’ or ‘tactical’.
It was easy to determine the approach used because participants had been provided
with tactical and technical lesson-plan templates and were allowed to choose which
one they preferred. The PETE students had also been asked to justify why they
had selected their respective approach. Such information was coded to determine
emergent themes in their rationales through constant comparison (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). The authors completed this exercise independently and achieved
100% agreement on the emergent themes.
Results
Games play performance
Videotaped 4 versus 4 games enabled us to determine games play performance. Refer
to Table 2 for GPAI summary statistics of each cohort.
The t tests revealed that the GCA group significantly improved in skill execution
(p ¼ 0.006), but gained neither in decision-making nor support. However, the
overall GPAI index of games play showed significant gains among the tactical group
(p ¼ .002). See Table 2 which also indicates that the TGT group participants did
not improve significantly in any games dimension, or overall on their games playing
index.
Table 2. Pre- and post-unit games playing ability scores1
Tactically-taught group Technically-taught group
GPAI
component
Pre-unit
(SD)
Post-unit
(SD) P value
Pre-unit
(SD)
Post-unit
(SD) P value
Skill 3.38 (2.31) 5.87 (1.29) .006_ 5.52 (1.51) 10.81 (7.34) .098
Decision
Providing
2.30 (1.87) 3.94 (1.24) .017 3.69 (1.41) 8.81 (7.11) .086
Support 2.15 (1.75) 4.15 (2.31) .045 3.86 (4.25) 7.81 (3.46) .020
Overall Index 2.60 (1.90) 4.64 (1.28) .002_ 4.35 (1.72) 9.14 (5.59) .020
1Means (SDs); _significant with p _ .0125
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 71
Perceived ability to teach
Initial data analysis examined the differences in perceived abilities within each group
in terms of using skills, demonstrating skills to pupils, knowing strategies, explaining
strategies to pupils, knowing tactics, and explaining tactics to pupils. The results of
the t tests revealed that both groups improved significantly in their perceived use of
skills, but only the tactical group improved significantly in any other area. The tactical
participants’ perceptions of their knowing tactics, explaining tactics and explaining
strategies significantly improved. Please refer to Table 3.
Teaching approach preference
When asked if they would rather use a technical or tactical approach for teaching
basketball in their upcoming teaching practicum, both groups claimed a preference
for the GCA. This inclination grew from pre- to post-instruction. The tactical
group’s final preference was greater with a mean score of 1.97 (pre-unit
mean ¼ 1.73), compared with a post-unit mean score of 1.73 (pre-unit ¼ 1.50) for
the technical group. Interestingly, on their initial questionnaire 27% (n ¼ 4) of the
GCA cohort stated a preference for teaching basketball through a technical perspective.
Although no respondent later re-stated that preference, one did indicate that the
approach choice would depend on pupils’ abilities and aptitude for the game. On the
preliminary survey, nominations for each of the teaching approaches were evenly split
(2 _ n ¼ 7) among participants in the TGT cohort. One student was absent during
administration of the questionnaire and so did not contribute pre- or post-module
data for this area. The post-module results also varied for the TGT class. Only
23% indicated that their preference would be to teach basketball using a traditional
approach compared with the 50% prior to the unit.
Our analysis of their planning assignments revealed that both groups preferred to
teach basketball from a tactical perspective. All members of the tactical group
designed lesson plans with a GCA emphasis, although that result might not be
surprising, given that they were taught using this approach. However, contrary to
Table 3. Pre- and post-unit questionnaire scores pertaining to perceived abilities1
Tactically-taught group Technically-taught group
Perceived ability Pre-unit Post-unit P value Pre-test Post-unit P value
Using Skills 2.33 (1.11) 3.93 (.70) .000_ 3.31 (1.03) 3.77 (1.30) .002_
Demonstrating Skills 3.20 (1.26) 3.87 (.91) .086 3.54 (.88) 3.92 (1.19) .272
Knowing Strategy 2.33 (1.11) 3.80 (.68) .442 2.92 (.86) 3.54 (.97) .710
Explaining Strategy 2.53 (1.30) 3.87 (.91) .001_ 3.23 (.83) 3.61 (1.04) .272
Knowing Tactics 2.20 (1.26) 3.80 (.68) .000_ 3.00 (1.08) 3.46 (1.13) .213
Explaining Tactics 2.47 (1.25) 3.87 (.64) .001_ 3.00 (1.00) 3.46 (1.13) .111
1Means (SDs); _significant with p _ .0083
72 S. Wright et al.
their method of basketball instruction, most TGT students (77%) also designed
tactically-oriented lesson plans. Because the participants’ reasons for choosing one
or the other approach were open-ended, some provided multiple explanations that
aided in our understanding their motives. The tactical group highlighted 42
reasons for using the GCA approach, but the technical group only provided 24.
Collectively, the most popular reason for choosing the TGfU-related approach was
the (perceived) attraction of involving pupils more in cognitive processes related to
games play, in other words in developing their ‘games sense’ (Kirk, 2001; Launder,
2001). Sixteen responses (52%) that pertained to pupils’ benefiting from thinking
more, understanding the game better, and/or solving problems during games play
were collectively categorized. As one explained:
Students are given more ownership in the learning process. This is a move away from a
teacher-centred lesson (skills-based approach) to one that encourages high levels of contributions
and involvement from pupils, which fosters the development of independent
thought. The [GCA] approach also enables pupils to have a greater appreciation of
when to pass, shoot or dribble, and consider factors that influence decision-making,
such as the position of team-mates and the opposition.
The assumption that a tactical approach to teaching basketball would stimulate
greater interest in playing was the second most common motive (42%) for using a
games understanding model. So wrote a GCA participant:
I have chosen the [TGfU] approach, not so much because it is being practiced in courses
here [at the university], but because it benefits students. As a student, I have enjoyed this
approach more and put more effort into participating, as compared to the mundane traditional
approach.
The third most prevalent response (32%) implied that pupils would be more interested
in playing basketball if games play, rather than skills development, were the
common focus. According to a participant:
Games provide a more lively, interesting, and exciting alternative to learning skills, than
through drills. Games provide the link between skills and tactics as they provide a context
for utilizing skills to solve tactical problems.
Also worth noting was that eight respondents (26%) mentioned that the GCA
might be beneficial because their pupils would be able to transfer concepts from
one game to another. In agreement with Bunker and Thorpe (1986), their claim
was that if pupils understood the concept of ball possession in basketball they
would be able to transfer that knowledge to another invasion game, say soccer. A
further six respondents (19%) mentioned that using a tactical approach would
enable them to contextualize skills development activities in games situations and
so enable pupils to understand why skills practice was needed.
Of the three TGT participants who elected not to use the GCA approach in their
lesson plans, two used a traditional approach. Perhaps hedging her bets, the other
chose to use a technical approach for the first three lessons to ensure basic skill acquisition
and then took up a tactical approach in planning the final five lessons of her unit.
The two technicists mentioned that they were more comfortable with this approach
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 73
than with the GCA and that they believed that teaching basic skills was essential. As
one stated:
I have chosen the Skills approach for the method of conducting my lessons as I am more
familiar with this style. It is important for pupils to acquire some essential, basic skills
which will enable them to play and appreciate the game.
Discussion
Perceived ability to teach—tactical group
The results from the questionnaires demonstrated that the tactically-taught participants’
perceptions of their abilities to use skills and explain strategies, as well as to
understand and explain tactics pertaining to basketball improved significantly over
the length of the study. This finding is not surprising given that the GCA group spent
most of its lesson time in situational games activities, and was also regularly challenged
in questioning sessions that repeatedly focused on finding games-related solutions.
The more we study and teach through a tactical approach for games, the more valuable
appears questioning (McNeill et al., 2004). Each 50-minute GCA lesson had
both an initial and a concluding situational game with a conceptual focus; and both
were succeeded by whole-class questioning sessions that typically lasted about five
minutes. Across all lessons, Steve’s whole-class questioning of the GCA cohort
totalled three hours. As pedagogues, we see questioning as critical to developing
games players because cognition is an integral component of ‘games sense’ (Macdonald,
2004). In the current context, we valued a conceptual focus being made before
the game as ‘leading’ bodily learning, as Steve regularly encouraged the students to
reference what was occurring during play. Subsequent whole-class questioning
around a scenario that occurred during play was equally valuable for ‘trailing’
bodily learning as it enhanced deep understanding through encouraging the players
to reflect on, analyse and resolve the situational problem. Without pre-setting the
conceptual focus in order to scaffold the subsequent after-play, questioning about a
relevant games scenario within the GCA approach is potentially less effective.
Additionally, questioning participants during a game about what is transpiring and
why requires them to use higher-order thinking skills that are essential for developing
games-sense. We agree with Kirk and MacPhail (2002), in their proposed revision to
the TGfU model, that students need to ‘think strategically’ while playing games.
Steve’s questioning sessions during real games time gave players an immediate opportunity
to reflect on their decisions, actions, thoughts and feelings and importantly
enabled them to connect such cognition and emotion to their bodily activity. Here,
the bodily action is central to games understanding (Cheville, 2001). The postopening
game’s questioning also gave relevance to the games skills development
phase which followed, in that Steve created playing conditions which provided
context. We suggest that is why the tactical participants of this study expressed confidence
not only for teaching tactics and strategies but also in using skills necessary
for playing the game of basketball.
74 S. Wright et al.
Another aspect of the questioning sessions that warrants discussion was Steve’s
decision to probe understanding either in the class as a whole or in small groups.
We also agree with Kirk and MacPhail’s (2002) suggestion that teachers who use a
TGfU approach should modify games to meet the needs of individual students
because they have varying experiences, understandings and abilities related to the
game being played. In this study, the needs of participants greatly varied. Therefore,
Steve decided that it would be more appropriate to question them in their small-sided
games groups, because overall, individuals and groups varied in their abilities to play
situational games. Moreover, within small-sided play, questioning becomes more
personally relevant than is whole-class questioning, because it is targeted specifically
at the games performance of particular players and their opponents.
Game play performance—tactical group
Tactical participants also improved significantly overall in their games playing
performance (skill execution, decision making and support) as established by the
GPAI. The two situational games that were featured in every session on average
totalled 30 minutes. Taken over time, the participants engaged in nine hours of
games playing activity. Given this process aspect of GCA teaching, we reasonably
expected that they would improve significantly in their abilities to play the game as
the focus of the unit was games play. Again, it seemed that questioning helped in
that, as a teaching strategy, it is complementary to games play; that is, developing
‘games sense’ is not merely about developing understanding about games play, but
rather it is about helping students become players who embody that understanding.
In other words, becoming games players involves doing, not just thinking, but
players have to think about their learning to play (Launder, 2001), not just mindlessly
‘going through the motions’. Probing learners’ thinking is important, especially when
that thought is embedded in play. Then, the GCA-taught learners have taken on
games play in a body–mind sense; this is what Cheville (2001) and others refer to
as embodied practice. Although Cheville argues that the body is important for all learners,
it is especially so for games learner-players, and games learner-teachers. For
example, a strategy to help maintain possession of the ball is for ‘off-the-ball’ team
mates to support their player with the ball; when Steve asked, ‘Why were you successful
in maintaining possession?’, one response was related to the quality of their
‘support off the ball’. This cognitive processing therefore reinforces ‘knowing’ this
strategy and subsequently engendering that knowing in action.
Perceived ability to teach—technical group
Questionnaire responses analysis revealed that the TGT participants’ perceptions of
their ability to use skills pertaining to basketball improved significantly over the length
of the study. Scrutiny of the unit content (Table 1) for the technical group reveals that
the first 12 lessons were taught almost exclusively through technical drills. Roughly
70% of the overall engaged time with this group was spent in Steve’s explaining
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 75
and/or demonstrating techniques and participants’ engaging in technical drills.
Therefore, we were not surprised that the TGT student-players responded with a significant
increase in their perceived ability to use skills. Discussions and questions
related to tactics and strategies for them did not occur in the first 12 lessons and
Steve only used these interactive strategies thereafter in a content-centred,
‘knowing that’ way. On the other hand, comparative statistics substantiated the
expectation that TGT participants would not improve significantly in their perceived
abilities of understanding and explaining tactics and strategies.
Game play performance—technical group
The TGT participants did improve significantly in their ability to execute skills as
measured by the GPAI. However, they did not improve significantly overall in their
games play index. As games play and related discussions were featured in approximately
30% of the time for this group, this result could perhaps be anticipated. A
likely key component in explaining these results lies in Steve’s questioning that augmented
practice for the TGT participants. These sessions are not a key characteristic
of a teacher-centred, technical pedagogy, but nevertheless Steve questioned at least
once every session, invariably after play had concluded. However, the questions typically
engaged lower-order thinking skills, because he usually asked for recalling ‘how’
something was done: ‘What are the components of a cross-over dribble?’ Even when
questions were related to the strategy of a ‘give and go’, for instance, Steve’s emphasis
was not on how using this strategy could create and utilize space in attack, but rather
on “When do you cut in front or behind the defender?” Thus, this post-game discussion
exemplified questioning as a ‘trailing’ strategy—important, but less powerful than
the questioning that occurred during games play with its immediate reference and
significance.
Care was taken to go from skills development drills to small-sided games, such as 2
versus 2, 3 versus 3 and 4 versus 4, before the regulation-sized 5 versus 5.We planned
thus because we view basketball as a complicated game that is difficult to play in the
regulation, 5-aside setting. Furthermore, in small-sided games, such as 2 versus 2, all
participants are guaranteed involvement in the play, and multiple ‘touches’ of the ball
are unavoidable, at least for the team in possession. In short, whatever the way of
teaching, using modified and conditioned small-sided games are an important basis
for the progression to regulation play.
Teaching preference—tactical and technical groups
The result that at unit-end all but one of the 15 participants in the tactical group
stated a preference for teaching basketball through the GCA was not a surprise.
Graber (1989) identified a studentship characteristic called ‘fronting’ (pp. 66–67).
With fronting, it is not uncommon for students to display selected behaviours in
the hope of being favourably perceived by their lecturer(s). In the local context, this
impression management is known as ‘giving face’, a mark of showing respect.
76 S. Wright et al.
Accepting that the tactical group was so taught, we might assume that the students
would have been influenced to answer with a preferred tactical response, so seeking
to give the impression that they had taken on an institutional or lecturer-held belief
as their own.
Perhaps more difficult to explain was the TGT group’s expression of their preferences
for teaching basketball. The pre-unit result revealed that 50% of the technical
participants preferred a tactical approach, yet this increased to 71% by unit-end. Possibly
that group viewed their traditional experience more critically than usual; as their
counterparts were engaged in a tactical approach and, because students in each
cohort sometimes socialized together, there could have been a degree of crossgroup
‘contamination’. We might speculate that this favoured perception arose
from discussion between participants of both groups regarding how they were being
taught by Steve. One TGT participant, whose post-unit preference changed in
favour of the GCA, wrote that the tactical approach ‘enables students to see the
relevance of the skills in game situations, unlike the traditional approach.’ Of interest
to us was a passage from another technical participant who chose the technical
approach for pre- as well as post-instruction surveys. As she wrote in her second
questionnaire,
Personally I amstill not very familiar with basketball strategies so I won’t attempt to use it
[a tactical approach] to teach strategies. If given a choice, I will choose to teach more
skills and fewer strategies.
This response highlights the point that if university faculty model their teaching of
activity classes through a technical approach, then there is increased likelihood that
PETE graduates will follow suit when they teach in schools, particularly when they
would not have previously experienced a tactical approach in their own games
schooling.
Teaching preference pertaining to lesson plans
The most common reason in justifying the teaching approach adopted in their basketball
planning assignment, that a tactical approach would have cognitive benefits to
pupils, is generally consistent with findings from comparable research. Rink et al.’s
review (1996) of tactical and technical teaching studies indicated that tacticallytaught
students perform better on tests of tactical knowledge than do their technically-
taught peers. Other studies by Turner (1996) and Turner and Martinek (1999)
have shown that tactical pupils make better decisions during games than do their technical
peers. As the latter researchers stated,
The trend toward better decision making and enhanced declarative and procedural
knowledge by the ‘games for understanding’ group suggests that a cognitive benefit is
derived from using this approach in teaching games to children (Turner & Martinek,
1999, p. 293).
Although research in this area is not definitive, the possibility for cognitive benefits
exists and certainly these PETE students saw them to be important.
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 77
The second most common reason for choosing a tactical approach for teaching
basketball was motivation, in that respondents believed pupils would be more interested
in this alternative to a traditional approach. This is another outcome supported
by findings from several other studies (Lawton, 1989; Griffin et al., 1995; Turner,
1996). The participants’ third reason for choosing a tactical approach, an increase
in game activity, is closely related to the previous argument: games activity tends to
stimulate students: ‘They constantly ask, “When can we play a game?”’ (Chandler,
1996, p. 49). He also wrote about pupils and the ‘self-propelling’ motivation of understanding
and wanting to play better which,
. . . motivates us to return to the game. Because the TGfU approach is both game[s]-
dependent and student-centered, rather than being content-centered or teachercentered,
it provides such self-propelling motivation’ (p. 49).
The participants’ responses as to why they chose to plan lessons using a tactical
approach demonstrated, what seemed to be, a clear understanding of perceived
benefits of the approach. We can only speculate how those responses were derived
because we did not directly ask. All students in this study had been exposed to the
tactical approach through a games principles module and a pedagogical module that
focused on indirect methods of teaching. The latter academic unit also included
opportunities for participants to teach using a tactical approach to pupils in schools.
The theory related to perceived benefits of the GCA was taught in both modules
and participants themselves had an opportunity to experience teaching using the
approach in the real-world setting of schools. These modules and experiences surely
have had an impact on the PETE students’ beliefs about teaching games to pupils.
Situated learning for adults
Returning to a situated learning perspective for adult PE student teachers, we believe
that their learning to teach games through a combination of tactics and techniques is
important. Therefore, more extensive use of a tactical approach as a model when
teaching within the undergraduate PETE programme will reinforce the link
between tactics and techniques in contextualized settings. If student teachers can
be taught within situations that challenge their intellectual as well as psychomotor
abilities, there will be a greater likelihood that they will apply that learning to their
working environment (Lankard, 1995); such is Cheville’s notion of embodied practice.
The regular questioning phases used by the teacher in this study encouraged
the tactical participants to solve problems, reflect on their skill execution and
decision-making, and evaluate overall games performance through strategic thinking.
As a result, the tactical approach promoted more of the cognitive apprenticeship
model alluded to earlier, whereas the technical approach was lacking in the quantity
of games-centred instruction and therefore offered less to the students. A key component
of this difference appears to be not just the quantity of games play, but even
more importantly the type of questioning that was facilitated for both groups. Regardless
of the approach that PETE students eventually choose for teaching games,
exposure to a tactical approach will broaden their professional outlook and this will
78 S. Wright et al.
ultimately enhance their pupils’ games sense, transforming pupils into informed
players who are better tactical decision-makers.
The question of whether to teach games solely through tactics still has to be
addressed. There is some concern among physical educators, especially PETE
students in our local context (McNeill et al., 2004), that understanding without
pupils’ having basic technical skills is no less frustrating than their having technical
ability without understanding. We agree with Holt et al. (2002) when they wrote,
Skill development is explicitly included in tactical approaches, just as games play is a part
of technical approaches. The crucial point is when to introduce tactical or technical skills’
(p. 164).
Further Launder’s (2001, p. 14) justification for play practice promoting experimentation
where learners are encouraged ‘to try out moves and tactics, to try on
roles, all without the threat of criticism’ is an important consideration for legitimizing
failure and keeping a balanced perspective in our pedagogy.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of different teaching approaches
affected the game playing ability, perceived ability to teach, teaching approach preference
and lesson plan designs of final-year PETE students. The results suggest that the
tactical group improved significantly in overall games play performance, and perceptions
of their abilities to teach tactics and strategies and use of basketball skills significantly
improved. Alternatively, the technical group participants notably improved in
their skill execution during games play as did their perception of their ability to use
basketball skills in games situations. Tactical participants were unanimous in their
choice of tactical lesson plans for their module assignment, whereas 80% (n ¼ 15)
of the technical group also chose tactical lesson plans. When providing their rationale(
s) for choosing tactical plans, the most popular reasons were: engaging pupils
cognitively; stimulating pupil interest; allowing for more game play; and providing
pupils the opportunity to transfer concepts from one game to another.
The overriding preference of participants from both groups to teach basketball
through a tactical approach was an unanticipated finding. Although there have
been numerous studies that examined the tactical approach to teaching games, no
research has been published pertaining to the crucial population of PETE students.
If these potential facilitators of learning in schools’ PE are not empowered with this
knowledge, there is little chance of their developing a constructivist pedagogy. Socialization
research suggests that there are many obstacles in the path of novice teachers
who may choose a tactical approach to teach games. Therefore, more research is
needed to determine what support structures in the professional and occupational
socialization of physical educators will lead to effective teaching through a tactical
approach. A follow-up investigation with the participants in this study could
provide valuable information about the ‘wash out’ effect (Wright, 2001). The
question begs as to the extent these PETE students will choose to teach games
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 79
through a tactical approach when they operate in schools. Or, will they revert to and
maintain the status quo by teaching games through a technical approach? In regard to
the technical approach, what can be done to address the concerns about poor practices
that have been highlighted by Bunker and Thorpe (1986)? Surely such a longstanding
approach, hegemonic in the teaching of games, does have important and
positive qualities. What are these and how might the weaker features be reduced or
eliminated?
Given that games play is such a critical part of school physical education curricula,
its importance in PETE cannot be overstated. Prospective teachers should be given
ample opportunities to study and practice various approaches to teaching games.
Instead of trying to determine which is best, efforts should be made to determine
the strengths of each approach. Continued examination of the technical and tactical
approaches related to games teaching to PETE students is warranted and follow-up
studies to determine styles used by participants while teaching in schools would be
valuable.
References
Almond, L. (1986) Reflecting on themes: a games classification, in: R. Thorpe, D. Bunker &
L. Almond (Eds) Rethinking games teaching (Loughborough, Loughborough University),
71–72.
Almond, L. (2001) A historical perspective, keynote address presented at the International
Conference for Teaching Games for Understanding in Physical Education and Sport, Waterville
Valley, New Hampshire, 1 August.
Berkowitz, R. (1996) A practitioner’s journey: from skill to tactics, Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 44–45.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A. & Duguid, P. (1989) Situated cognition and the culture of learning,
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.
Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools, Bulletin of
Physical Education, 18(1), 5–8.
Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1986) The curriculum model, in: R. Thorpe, D. Bunker & L. Almond
(Eds) Rethinking games teaching (Loughborough, Loughborough University), 7–10.
Butler, J. (1996) Teacher responses to teaching games for understanding, Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(9), 17–20.
Chandler, T. (1996) Teaching games for understanding: reflections and further questions, Journal of
Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 49–51.
Cheville, J. (2001) Minding the body: what student athletes know about learning (Portsmouth, NH,
Boynton/Cook).
Dewar, A. M. (1989) Recruitment in physical education teaching: toward a critical approach,
in: T. Templin & P. Schempp (Eds) Socialization into physical education: learning to teach (Indianapolis,
IN, Benchmark), 39–58.
Ennis, C. D. (1996) Students’ experiences in sport-based physical education: [more than] apologies
are necessary, Quest, 48, 453–456.
French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Rink, J. E., Taylor, K. & Hussey, K. (1996) The effects of a 3-week
unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of
ninth grade students, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 418–438.
French, K. E.,Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K. & Jones, J. (1996) The effects of a 6-week unit
of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on badminton performance of ninth
grade students, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 439–463.
80 S. Wright et al.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research
(New York, Aldine).
Graber, K. (1989) Teaching tomorrow’s teachers: professional preparation as an agent of socialization,
in: T. Templin & P. Schempp (Eds) Socialization into physical education: learning to teach
(Indianapolis, IN, Benchmark), 68–69.
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A. & Oslin, J. L. (1997) Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games
approach (Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics).
Griffin, L. L., Oslin, J. L. & Mitchell, S. A. (1995) An analysis of two instructional approaches to
teaching net games [Abstract], Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66 (Suppl.), A–64.
Griffin, L. L. & Placek, J. H. (2001) The understanding and development of learners’
domain-specific knowledge [Monograph], Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20,
299–416.
Griffin, L. L. & Sheehy, D. (2004) Using the tactical games model to develop problem-solvers in
physical education, in: J. Wright, D. Macdonald & L. Burrows (Eds) Critical inquiry and
problem-solving in physical education (London, Routledge), 33–48.
Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B. & Bengoechea, E. G. (2002) Expanding the teaching games for understanding
model: new avenues for future research and practice, Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 21, 162–176.
Hopper, T. (2002) Teaching games for understanding: the importance of student emphasis over
content emphasis, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 73(7), 44–48.
Kirk, D. (1986) Critical pedagogy for teacher education: toward an inquiry-oriented approach,
Quest, 5, 236–246.
Kirk, D. (2001) Future directions for teaching games for understanding/game sense, keynote
address presented at the International Conference on Teaching Games for Understanding in
Physical Education and Sport, Waterville Valley, New Hampshire, 1 August.
Kirk, D., Brooker, R. & Braiuka, S. (2000) Teaching games for understanding: a situated perspective
on student learning, paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, 1–5 April.
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.
Langley,D. J. & Knight, S. M. (1996) Exploring practical knowledge: a case study of an experienced
senior tennis performer, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 433–447.
Lankard, B. A. (1995) New ways of learning in the workplace (Columbus, OH, ERIC Clearinghouse on
Adult Career and Vocational Education) (ED 385 778).
Launder, A. (2001) Play practice: the games approach to teaching and coaching sports (Adelaide, SA,
Human Kinetics).
Lawton, J. (1989) Comparison of two teaching methods in games, Bulletin of Physical Education,
25(1), 35–38.
Macdonald, D. (2004) Understanding learning in physical education, in: J. Wright, D. Macdonald
& L. Burrows (Eds) Critical inquiry and problem-solving in physical education (London,
Routledge), 16–29.
McMorris, T. (1998) Teaching games for understanding: its contribution to the knowledge of skill
acquisition from a motor learning perspective, European Journal of Physical Education, 3(1),
65–74.
McNeill, M. C., Fry, J. M., Wright, S. C., Tan, W. C., Tan, K. S. & Schempp, P. G. (2004) ‘In the
local context’: Singaporean challenges to teaching games on practicum, Sport, Education and
Society, 9, 3–32.
McPherson, S. L. & French, K. E. (1991) Changes in cognitive strategies and motor skill in tennis,
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 26–41.
Ministry of Education (1999) Revised physical education syllabus for primary, secondary, and preuniversity
levels (Singapore, Curriculum Planning and Development Division).
Teaching teachers to play and teach games 81
Mitchell, S. A., Griffin, L. L. & Oslin, J. L. (1995) The effects of two instructional approaches on
game performance, Pedagogy in Practice: Teaching and Coaching in Physical Education and
Sports, 1(1), 36–48.
Mitchell, S. A. & Oslin, J. L. (1999) An investigation of tactical transfer in net games, European
Journal of Physical Education, 4, 162–172.
Mosston, M. (1966) Teaching physical education (Columbus, OH, Merrill).
Mosston, M. & Ashworth, S. (2002) Teaching physical education (5th edn) (San Francisco, CA,
Benjamin Cummings).
Oslin, J. L. (1996) Tactical approaches to teaching games [Feature Ed], Journal of Physical
Education, Recreation and Dance, 67, 27.
Oslin, J. L, Mitchell, S. A. & Griffin, L. L. (1998) The game performance assessment instrument:
development and preliminary validation, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17,
231–243.
Plymouth State College (2001) International Conference 2001: Teaching Games for Understanding in
Physical Education and Sport, Waterville Valley, New Hampshire, 1–4 August.
Richard, J. F. & Griffin, L. (2001) Assessing game performance: an introduction to using the TSAP
and GPAI, paper presented at the International Conference on Teaching Games for Understanding
in Physical Education and Sport, Waterville Valley, New Hampshire, 1–4 August.
Rink, J. E. (2001) Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy, Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 20, 112–128.
Rink, J. E., French, K. E. & Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1996) Foundations for the learning and instruction of
sport and games, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 399–417.
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,
341–351.
Stein, D. (1998) Situated learning in adult education (Columbus, OH, ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult
Career and Vocational Education) (ED 418 250).
Tan, K. S. S. & Tan, E. K. H. (2000) Managing change within the physical education curriculum:
issues, opportunities and challenges, in: J. Tan, S. Gopinathan & W. K. Ho (Eds) Challenges
facing the Singapore education system today (Singapore, Prentice Hall), 50–70.
Turner, A. (1996) Teaching for understanding: myth or reality, Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46–47, 55.
Turner, A. P. & Martinek, T. J. (1992) A comparative analysis of two models for teaching
games (technique approach and game-centered–tactical focus–approach), International
Journal of Physical Education, 29(4), 15–31.
Turner, A. P. & Martinek, T. J. (1999) An investigation into teaching games for understanding:
effects on skill, knowledge, and game play, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(3),
286–296.
Turner, A. P., Allison, P. C. & Pissanos, B. W. (2001) Constructing a concept of skillfulness in
invasion games within a games for understanding context, European Journal of Physical
Education, 6(1), 38–54.
University of Melbourne (2003) 2nd International Conference: Teaching Sport and Physical Education
for Understanding, Melbourne, Australia, 11–14 December.
Werner, P., Thorpe, R. & Bunker, D. (1996) Teaching games for understanding: evolution of a
model, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 67(1), 28–33.
Wilson, G. (2002) A framework for teaching tactical game knowledge, Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance, 73(1), 20–26.
Wright, S. (2001) Implementation of the games concept approach from the cooperating teachers’
perspective, paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education, Fremantle,
Australia, December.
82 S. Wright et al.