Teaching Games for Understanding

This approach to teaching put the game first. However this is not a playing games just to keep students 'busy, happy and good' this is putting the game first so as to help students become intelligent performers. Teaching games for understanding (or TGfU) was developed at Loughborough University in the early 1980s as an alternative to the 'skills and drills' approach that dominated (and many would argue still does dominate) the practice landscape of physical education. Len Almond, David Bunker and Rod Thorpe offered and extolled this alternative approach to teaching games because of the one-size fits all approach to teaching in physical education. They argued that teachers taught techniques – like the overhead clear in badminton – when they were ready but not when it was developmentally appropriate. Furthermore they felt that in any given class there might be a student who had mastered the clear years previous while others would never master the shot. Finally, Bunker, Almond and Thorpe suggested that the clear was a pointless shot if a player didn't know when to use it effectively in the game.

 

Instead of this emphasis on techniques they developers of TGfU put the game first. Badminton (like other net and wall games) is about hitting the shuttle so your opponent(s) can't hit it back and returning all your opponents viable shots. By teaching students to understand this concept and apply their skills to the achievement of this aim Bunker, Almond and Thorpe believed that thinking players would be developed. The idea, therefore, was to teach game appreciation through the use of modified games. The following example (taken from a coach sessions I lead for teachers on Saturday) helps to frame my argument.

 

Basketball

The immediate emphasis was on a hierarchy of decisions based upon the role that the player was undertaking. There were four roles: 1) on the ball attacker (the player with the ball) 2) the off the ball attackers (all the other players on the ball carrier's team) 3) the on the ball defender (the player marking the ball), and 4) the off the ball defender. Each student had priorities based upon their role:

1) on the ball attacker (the player with the ball) – Scored, passed to someone in a better position to score, or dribbled to improve either their teams ability to score.

2) the off the ball attackers (all the other players on the ball carrier's team) – found space to receive a pass in

3) the on the ball defender (the player marking the ball) – Either tries to deny the score or gets the ball for his or her team.

4) the off the ball defender – denies the attacker space.

 

With the roles established split the group into four teams we played two half court 3v3 games. The modified rules were 1) no dribbling 2) if you shot and hit any part of the backboard or ring then you scored one point 3) if you scored a basket then you scored three points 4) a ball turned over when you were defending had to be passed out of your half before an attack on the basket could be made. In between the games I used question and answer sessions to get the student teachers to develop a basic understanding of the modifications. They suggested that they were trying to score from everywhere because it was easier to score but that they were very inaccurate.

 

We played 3 games and all the while I asked players to wear different coloured bibs. These bids represented the player's ability and the level of pressure the defence could put on the ball carrier. A red bib meant fully defence (i.e. the player could defend to the very best of their ability); a yellow bid meant partial defence (i.e. defenders could not get closer than 0.5 metre and could only use their hands to block and not steal the ball); a green bib meant that the player could not be marked closer than 1 metre and that the defender could only shadow them. Every player wore a different colour in each game to decide where the pressure was most suitable for them. For the rest of the session the players then wore their favoured colour (which they could modify by task i.e. good players but poor shooters might wear a different colour to buy themselves a little more time).

 

Such a modification allows students to be fully engaged in an adapted game (we later went on to change the target for the shot to the inner black box and the top part of the hoop, and the shooting range from anywhere, down through the three point line and then to the key; and finally introduced dribbling). Throughout the session (which was 3 hours long) players played in and against mixed ability teams and yet all profited from this system. In this way players were taught to think intelligently about the game, they started to 'read' the triggers that come from match play rather than doing everything in static drills. We covered shooting as a technique, and dribbling and then put it them quickly into a modified game.

 

For more information see: http://www.tgfu.org/ and download the Bunker, Almond and Thorpe's original paper.

 

Does Continued Professional Development do anything?

I am just reading up about continued professional development (CPD) and it simply doesn't seem to achieve anything of note. Of course I am talking in general terms but the research I am reading is certainly worrying. My own CPD, well at least until I started my personal higher degree acquisition programme, was simple. Normally it was a governing body award in a sport (i.e. Rugby Level 2, Hockey Level 1) or a qualification (i.e. bronze lifeguard or emergency first aid in the workplace) or occasionally it was a course that the school wanted me to do for my professional advancement (managing from the middle or leadership in physical education). With the exception of the 'doing things' qualifications such as being a first aider these were one day courses that never needed redoing and which stayed on my every increasing CV. Yet they were everything that they shouldn't really have been and very little of what they might have been.

 

• They were fun (which isn't a bad thing but I now feel it might have skewed by end-of-course evaluation which was judged predominantly on my satisfaction)
  
• They were one day and one-off courses with no follow-up
  
• The impact on teaching and learning in my classroom or department were never checked or monitored
  
• The impact on my long-term behaviour as a teacher was miniscule (and this was certainly never checked)
  

 

Since then I have engaged in a handful of what I consider highly ineffectual courses (not because of what I learnt but because of what I have forgotten as a result of their solitary impact in my very busy working life) and two highly effectual and satisfying courses. These two combined to last over 2000 days and were regularly followed up, they had a huge impact on the teaching and learning in my classroom and their impact on my behaviour as a teacher was so huge that it is hard to quantify at this time as I am still enjoying the results. The CPD I am talking about is action research.

 

CPD as action research allowed me, in the words of Kemmis (2009), to change my practice as a practitioner, understand my practice, and explore and appreciate the conditions in which I work. It was an opportunity to become aware of the potential benefits of educational research findings and it stimulated reflection and professionalism on my part rather than simply teaching me another way of doing the same again and again. I was not conscious of the ways in which I constructed my personal and practice knowledge about and around teaching before I engaged in action research. It was only through sustained and supported research that I can to fully appreciate what it was that I did as a teacher only to find out that I wanted to change what I did. However, action research was there to support me during the change for it allowed me to understand the long term behavioural and pedagogical changes that I was enacting.

Birth of the un-modern school?

In his book Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison Michel Foucault (1977) suggests that schools adopted their current form at around the same time as prisons, factories and barracks. Foucault's chapter Docile Bodies (pp. 135-169) supported the idea that the labour process (Hamilton, 1990) was at the heart of schooling. He indicated that the innovators of the eighteenth century believed that soldiers, prisoners and pupils alike could all be constructed out of "formless clay" by turning them slowly into the desired archetype through "automatism of habit" (p. 135). The manufacture of the pupil was thus achieved, Foucault believed, through the discipline of the minute:

Gradually – but especially after 1762 - the educational space unfolds; the class becomes homogeneous, it is no longer made up of individual elements arranged side by side under the master's eye. In the eighteenth century, 'rank' begins to define the great form of distribution of individuals in the educational order: rows or ranks of pupils in each class, corridors, courtyards; rank attributed to each pupil at the end of each class and each examination; the rank he obtains from week to week, month to month, year to year; an alignment of age groups, one after another; a succession of subjects taught and questions treated, according to an order of increasing difficulty. And, in this ensemble of compulsory alignments, each pupil, according to his age, performance, his behaviour, occupies sometimes one rank, sometimes another; he moves constantly over a series of compartments – some of these are 'ideal' compartments, marking a hierarchy of knowledge or ability, other express the distribution of values or merits in material terms in the space of the college or classroom. It is a perpetual movement in which individuals replace one another in a space marked off by aligned intervals. Foucault (1977, p. 147)

This extensive quotation shows that much of the eighteenth century notion of schools and schooling survives to the modern day. There are few inventions that have had such longevity and yet the social construction and reconstruction of the school has survived. I am not suggesting that the educational space described in Foucault's book endures unchanged, but there are substantial and fundamental similarities that have survived for nearly two hundred and fifty years.

[an extract from my PhD]

Creating a virtual staffroom

As I have said previously, I have secured funding available to create a physical education practitioner research network to serve the schools and teachers in the local area. However, I want to help to built something that:

• Is transformative
  
• encourages collaboration
  
• is inclusive
  
• is supportive of all those who get involved
  
• encourages a pedagogy of physical education that is innovative and student-centred
  
• allows teachers a platform for personal and professional development
  
• is flexible enough for a post-industrial age
  

Yet, now I am at an impasse. I don't want to rush into anything and am looking for help. I have a rough idea of how I might like the website to look but the content is still unclear. This is where I seek help. Please comment on this blog, or on your own blog, about the skeleton upon which to hang these aspirations:

• What simple, easy to navigate and inclusive facilities should be housed on this website?
  
• What should teachers be able to access from here?
  
• What support do I need to offer?
  
• What tools can I use to invite busy teachers into this virtual learning environment?
  
• How do I create a PLN?
  

Thanks, in anticipation of your help

Ashley

I'm a teacher….get me into here!

This is the sentiment that I would like to inspire in the teachers in the local community. Continued Professional Development (CPD) in Education and physical education has been derided and some have described it as being ineffectual (at best). Why?

Because it's:

• a one-off
  
• content rather than practice orientated
  
• unsupported past the actual course
  
• chosen by the school rather than the teacher
  
• its poorly delivered
  
• expensive to go on the course
  
• expensive to cover the teacher with a supply teacher in school
  
• often a national governing body award
  
• renowned as being good if it finishes early and has a nice lunch
  

The aim of the physical education practitioner researcher network is to support the CPD of its members. How?

By being:

• free
  
• providing free supply cover that is paid out of the funding grant
  
• sustained over four, related and supported workshops across the academic year
  
• delivered by physical education teacher educators
  
• supported by practitioner researchers with experience of research physical education in school
  
• a potential part of a higher degree
  
• followed by a nice lunch
  
• supported through a Professional Learning Network (PLN)
  
• supported through a bespoke website
  

It is the last two that I need help with. I have used a wiki before to support my secondary school students when they were making their own games (see Hastie, Casey and Tarter, 2010) but I haven't instigated a PLN or, to use @TomFullerton's words, developed an inquiry group with a virtual extension. The conceptualisation and design of this extension (in the form of a webpage) is the position that I am currently in and to which I am turning to a wider community for help. What follows is the original proposal that secured the first year's funding.

Proposal

Introduction

The purpose of the project is to contribute to the development of new and innovative approaches to teaching and learning of physical education by facilitating the creation of a collaborative network of practitioner researchers in local schools (Bedfordshire and environs). The practitioner research network (PRN) will be a means of supporting teachers' continuing professional development in becoming reflective practitioners and in conducting systematic practitioner research. As such, the PRN is intended to provide a location for developments in physical education, in particular through models-based practice (Metzler, 2005; Kirk, 2010). The recent PhD study undertaken and completed by Casey (2010) has shown the difficulties of undertaking a sustained practitioner research project in isolation. This remoteness, which could liken to the loneliness of the long distance runner, would be lessened, rationalised or removed through the PRN.

Practitioner research can be defined as: "a deliberative process for emancipating practitioners from the often unseen constraints of assumptions, habit, precedent, coercion and ideology." Carr and Kemmis (1986, p. 192)

A useful summary of the way the term 'practitioner research' is used was given by Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2007, 25) when they described it as "a conceptual and linguistic umbrella to refer to a wide array of education research modes, forms, genres, and purposes." They argue that the expression encompasses a range of educational research methods including: action research; teacher research; self study; narrative (or autobiographical) inquiry; the scholarship of teaching and learning; and the use of teaching as a context for research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2007, 25).

In grouping these six genres of research Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2007) went on to justify their choices by exploring the shared features that cut across the various versions and variants. The primary aspect of all forms of practitioner research, they said, is the notion that the practitioner himself or herself takes on the role of researcher. Secondly, practitioner research works on the premise that in order to comprehend, and therefore improve practice, the interplay of power relationships and the workplace have to be expressly understood in the context of daily work. Finally, the very same professional context is the site of any practitioner inquiry and the "problems and issues that arise from professional practice are taken up as topics of study" (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2007, 26). It is this investigation of 'problems and issues' that is missing from our understanding of teacher development through school-based research.

There is an abundance of research in education about the effectiveness of this approach yet there has been little written in physical education to indicate that such a process is as effective. Indeed, as Armour (2006) recently wrote, practitioner research in its many guises is research that begins with "I" but ends with "you" and "we" as a profession. There is currently a dearth of literature around sustained programme of practitioner research in physical education. Many studies have involved physical education practitioners (See as examples: Almond, 1986; Dyson & Rubin 2003; Dyson & Strachan 2000; McMahon & MacPhail, 2007) but have been written for a different purpose. Little research has shown how the school as an institution facilitates and constrains the development of teachers through their own actions. Yet, as Almond (1986, 4) surmised:

Teachers cannot be expected to monitor and appraise all the time, but planning, teaching and thinking about one small unit of work can have a powerful effect. The course participants expressed the view that they had learning more about their teaching, their understanding of games and their pupils. They identified a change in their thinking as a consequence of examining their practice.

Objectives of the project

The principal objective of the project is to create a PRN that strives to improve the quality of physical education in schools. The funding gained would allow us to offer continued professional development (CPD) to practitioners through the establishment of the PRN. We will do this initially by establishing a series of four half-day workshops for teachers centred on practitioner research. The need for such CPD is important given the recent indication that recent provision has been "woefully inadequate" (Borko 2004, 3) and that the traditional "sporadic one-off, one-day, off-site courses contradict everything we know about the ways in which people are most likely to learn" (Armour 2006, 204). In contrast, the PRN would allow us to engaged teachers in meaningful and sustainable collaborations that gave us the opportunity to locate CPD in the community. Furthermore it would allow us to attract teachers to engage in masters or research-based higher and become partners in our own research.

References

Almond, L. (1986). Coventry Curriculum Development, Games: Coventry teachers explore...teaching for understanding. Coventry, England: Elm Bank Teachers' Centre.

Armour, K.M. (2006). The way to a teacher's heart: narrative research in physical education. In D. Kirk, D. Macdonald, & M. O'Sullivan (Eds.) The Handbook of Physical Education. (467-485). London: Sage

Armour, K. (2006). Physical education teachers as career-long learners: A compelling research agenda. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 11(3), 203-207.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming Critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer.

Casey, A. (2010). Practitioner Research in Physical Education: Teacher Transformation through pedagogical and curricular change. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis: Leeds Metropolitan University.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S.L. (2007). Everything's ethics. In A. Campbell & S. Groundwater-Smith (Eds.). An ethical approach to practitioner research: Dealing with issues and dilemmas in action research, 24-41. London: Routledge.

Dyson, B., & Rubin, A. (2003). How to implement cooperative learning in your elementary physical education program. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance 74, 48-55.

Dyson, B., & Strachan, K. (2000). Cooperative learning in a high school physical education program, Watikato Journal of Education, 6, 19-37.

Kirk, D. (2010) Physical Education Futures London: Routledge.

McMahon, E., & MacPhail, A. (2007). Learning to teach sport education: The experiences of a pre-service teacher. European Physical Education Review, 13(2), 229-246.

Metzler, M.W. (2005) Instructional Models for Physical Education, Scottsdale: Holcomb Hathaway (2nd Edition).

The expertise of the practitioner

Teachers have suffered from bad press of late (and some would argue not just of late). Their professionalism has been questions and every kind of third party, from politicians to business 'gurus', has lined up to take a shot at them and find ways of limiting their creativity and controlling their development. The ability of the teacher to make decisions about the learning of their pupils has been eroded and the confidence of the practitioner is being systematically dismantled by a succession of governments, ministers and departments keen to find scapegoats for falling social standards and anti social behaviour under a mantra of 'it wasn't like this in my day.' The recent example of a science teacher being goaded and manipulated by his class, drawing upon their knowledge of his previous ill-health, to service their desire for 'a laugh' is an example of the pressures of modern teaching. I do not condone his behaviour just hold this case up as a sad indictment on the modern world. Yet, will such revelations of structured and vindictive 'teacher bullying' led to greater autonomy for teachers or greater attempts at control by our governments?

Research has long suggested that the teacher works beyond the limits of their subject(s) – which is defined by knowledge and method – and works in a more general role that supports the mission of the school, the innate human desire of pupils and their parents towards learning and the need to cooperate with colleagues and other educationalists. The multifarious role of the teacher as subject and school expert places them in an ideal position to support and develop innovations in ways that best suit their particular environments. This degree of expertise is unprecedented in government and yet our school leaders are offered thousands of pages of systemic advice. Is not time that we acknowledged the bespoke knowledge of our teachers and trusted them to instigate practices that are particularly beneficial to their students?

Learning is not simply a case of mimicry. We need to challenge learners, regardless of their age, to confront their preconceptions and discover and construct new meaning from their experiences. If we know so much about how we learn, and if we acknowledge the localised expertise of teachers, then why do we persist with a 'top-down' system of educational reform? Is it not time that our 'leaders' acknowledge the 'nous', wisdom and common sense of our classroom practitioners and instead of giving them instructional diktats they are afforded the respect and encouragement that their professionalism warrants. Success comes in 'cans' not 'can nots' and if our childrens' teachers are continually devalued then we run the risk of paralysing them through fear of recrimination and indictment. The measures of adequacy that seem to have entered the vernacular of society have made commonplace a desire to blame the teachers for the moral decline that we are currently experiencing. Freedom to inspire rather than the compliance of mediocrity is what is required to redress issues of anti-social behaviour, poor health and fears of obesity and even to motivate the one child who might win Olympic gold or a Nobel Prize.

Acknowledge the expertise of the practitioner and watch these wonderful individuals inspire our children to do the rest!