Europea n Physical Education Review http://epe.sagepub.com/ interactions during games classes in high school (11 -- 16 years) physical Observational analysis of student activity modes, lesson contexts and teacher education Simon Roberts and Stuart Fairclough European Physical Education Review 2011 17: 255 DOI: 10.1177/1356336X11420222 The online version of this article can be found at: http://epe.sagepub.com/content/17/2/255 Published by:
Transcript
European Physical Education
Review http://epe.sagepub.com/
interactions during games classes in high school (11 −−16 years) physicalObservational analysis of student activity modes, lesson contexts and teacher
educationSimon Roberts and Stuart Fairclough European Physical
Downloaded from epe.sagepub.com by ika kartikawati on October 25, 2013
Observational analysis of student activity modes, lesson contexts and teacher interactions during games classes in high school (11–16 years) physical education
European Physical Education Review 17(2) 255–268
ª The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1356336X11420222
epe.sagepub.com
Simon Roberts Liverpool John Moores University
and
Stuart Fairclough Liverpool John Moores University
AbstractThis purpose of this study was to examine student activity, lesson contexts and teacher interac-tions during secondary school physical education, using a recently validated systematic observation instrument termed the System for Observing the Teaching of Games in Physical Education (SOTG-PE). Thirty, single-gender high school (11–16 years) physical education games lessons were system-atically observed and recorded using SOTG-PE. Results showed the pupils were engaged in high levels of inactivity. The highest level of inactivity was recorded (52.8 percent) in the striking/fielding category. In the lesson context category general management was recorded highest (47.4 percent). The highest recorded teacher interactions across the three games categories were verbally pro-moting technical behaviour (40.9 percent).
Corresponding author:Simon Roberts, Faculty of Education, Community, and Leisure, Liverpool John Moores University, IM Marsh Campus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool, L17 6BDEmail: [email protected]
256 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
Introduction
It has been reported that the teaching of traditional team and individual games tend to dominate schools’ curricula (Brooker et al., 2000; Fairclough et al., 2002; Oslin and Mitchell, 2006). The nature of the games which the students participate in and learn, are often subject to objective conditions (Butler, 2006). These can include: cultural variations (Garc´ıa Lo´pez et al., 2009); curriculum time (Gower and Capel, 2004); availability of facilities (Butler, 2006) as well as institutionalized objectives such as meeting recommended levels of physical activity (Fairclough and Stratton, 2005). The inherent value of learning to play games is reported to extend beyond just the physical execution of motor skills and techniques (Metzler, 2005). Participation in team games presents students with the opportunity to develop decision making skills (Gre´haigne et al., 2005). Moreover, participation within a team game also includes affective benefits, such as social and emotional learning (Butler, 2006).
However, the debate surrounding games education has not focused on ‘which’ game to teach, but ‘how’ the games should be taught in the first place (Wright et al., 2005). This debate has manifested from early attempts by researchers to provide superior evidence for one instructional approach to teaching games (e.g. technique) against another instructional approach (e.g. tactics) (Allison and Thorpe, 1997; French and Thomas, 1987; Rink, 1996; Turner and Martinek, 1999, 1999). The technique-based approach to teaching games is reported to follow a sequential three-stage process consisting of warm-up, skill/technical activity, and a game-based activity at the end (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982). The origin of the traditional technique-based approach or skill-drill approach, as it is also known (McNeill et al., 2008) lies in the positivistic epistemology of beha-vioural psychology and specifically behaviourist learning theory (Tinning, 2006; Wright et al., 2005). Behaviourist learning theory is reported to be characterized by the development of specific and observable skills (Tinning, 2006). Furthermore, behaviourist approaches to learning are largely characterized by the role of external factors, which include inter alia the role of the teacher (Wallian and Chang, 2006). Moreover, a behaviourist approach to learning positions the teacher at the heart of the learning process. Consequently, the teacher has responsibility for the principal ped-agogic decisions, such as the organization and delivery of learning tasks, facilitating the quantity and quality of the feedback, and deciding on the schedule for practice (Magill, 1990).
In his comprehensive text Instructional Models for Physical Education (2005), Metzler pro-vides an informative description of the various pedagogical models that are available to the teacher of physical education. According to Metzler, the instructional model mostly associated with behaviourist learning theory is direct instruction. From a pedagogic research perspective, direct instruction is reported to be the preferred pedagogic approach in the teaching of techniques and motor skills (Silverman, 1991; Sweeting and Rink, 1999). The pedagogic characteristics associated with direct instruction include: transparent instructional objectives, sequential chunking of material, reviewing previously taught content, delivery of new skills, opportunities for practice, and augmented feedback from the teacher (Sweeting and Rink, 1999). Research into the effec-tiveness of direct instruction originated with assessments of teacher and pupil time by quantifying Academic Learning Time-Physical Education (ALT-PE) (Siedentop et al., 1982). Systematic observation instruments such as ALT-PE permitted researchers to simultaneously record and quan-tify lesson contexts and learner involvement. Studies using ALT-PE reported that teachers predo-minantly engaged in managing, organizing and observing, and that the pupils spent 15–21 percent of the time waiting, listening, and engaging in unplanned tasks (Metzler, 1989). One study exam-ining relationships between teacher expectations and ALT-PE in a basketball setting observed that
Roberts and Fairclough
257
25 percent of lesson time was dedicated to subject matter knowledge, in particular techniques and motor skills, 53 percent of the lesson time was dedicated to subject matter motor, which included practice opportunities (44.9 percent) and games (2.1 percent). Finally, 22 percent of lesson time was engaged in general content, which included transition between activities, management and breaks (Cousineau and Luke, 1990). These findings were largely supported in a later study, which reported pupils in PE classes spending high proportions of lesson time in management, transition and waiting, respectively (Siedentop and Tannehill, 2000). Instruments to assess the quality of physical education instruction such as ALT-PE were designed generically for a range of physical education contexts, but not specifically for the games environment. As such, during games classes ALT-PE makes no distinction between the various practice categories and alternative game forms that students may be engaged in. Furthermore, ALT-PE does not take into consideration alternative instructional approaches such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU; Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) and tactical games concepts.
In contrast to the traditional technique-based approach to teaching games, tactical approaches originated from constructivist learning theory (Fosnot, 1996; Tallir et al., 2005). Despite the emer-gence of constructivism as a recognized learning theory in the 1980s and 1990s, its development has been largely accredited to the earlier work of Dewey, Piaget and Vygotsky (Fosnot, 1996; Phil-lips, 1995). Constructivism and its theory of learning can present many challenges for teachers of physical education (Rovegno, 1998; Rovegno and Bandhauer, 1997). Adopting a pedagogic per-spective which prioritizes the teacher as a facilitator of learning and not a transmitter of knowledge may be incongruous to the educational model experienced by many teachers during their own school years (Cobb and Yackel, 1996; Light and Wallian, 2008). Moreover, studies have reported that constructivist principles are complex for both teachers (Gordon, 2009; Rovegno and Band-hauer, 1997; Rovegno, 1998) and sports coaches (Roberts, 2011) due to the difficulties associated with adopting constructivist principles into instructional pedagogy. Early career teachers and stu-dent teachers are reported to experience the most difficulty adopting constructivist approaches because of the various pedagogic demands placed on them, which
include: inquiry type activities, managing student interaction, understanding pedagogic content, and assessing student knowledge (Rovegno, 1998; Windschitl, 2002). These demands can often contrast with the simpler traditional instructional approach of tell, demonstrate, and drill (McNeill et al., 2008).
In physical education, constructivist learning theory acted as a conduit for the development of constructivist games teaching approaches (Brooker et al., 2000) such as Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) and the Tactical Games Model (TGM) (Metzler, 2005). The constructivist features of TGfU and TGM include the use of modified games, inquiry activities, opportunities for students to demonstrate their understanding, and students accepting responsibility for their own learning (Holt et al., 2002). For this approach to be effective, it has been suggested that the teacher follows an inquiry-orientated, problem-solving, approach and adopts a questioning based strategy (Light and Fawns, 2003; Wallian and Chang, 2006; Wright and Forrest, 2007).
Although there have been a number of studies advocating the application of TGfU and TGM (Alexander and Penney, 2005; Butler, 2005; Griffin et al., 1995; Holt et al., 2002; Kirk and McPhail, 2002; Light, 2004; Mitchell et al., 1995; Wright et al., 2005) there is still some debate as to the actual impact these teaching approaches have made on teachers in the delivery of physical education (Evans and Clarke, 1988; Laws, 1994). This is somewhat surprising considering the emerging scientific support for random practice through conditioned games as opposed to specific, technical blocked practice (Ford et al., 2010; Williams and Hodges, 2005). Furthermore, early
258 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
studies surrounding TGfU and TGM attempted to provide support for one approach to teaching games (i.e. technique) against another (i.e. tactics) (Allison and Thorpe, 1997; French and Thomas, 1987; Rink, 1996; Turner and Martinek, 1999). Despite these early attempts to provide empirical support for tactical games concepts there is little evidence that TGfU and TGM are widely employed instructional approaches by teachers of physical education.
Therefore, the aims of this study were to use a games-specific observational tool to; (a) compare the frequency of student activity modes, lesson contexts, and teacher interactions during invasion, net/wall, and striking/fielding games classes, and (b) to investigate the association between teach-ing interactions, student activity, and lesson contexts during physical education games classes.
Method
Participants and setting
The participants in this study were recruited from a large, single gender, secondary school located in the north-west of England. The school recruited to this study followed the requirements for physical education as set out in the NCPE (QCA, 2007a). In addition to the requirements outlined in the formalized curriculum the school provided pupils with opportunities to be involved in com-petitive school sport. Examples of the sports available included: rugby union, field hockey, cricket, and European handball. The participants (740 boys, age range 11–16 years) were randomly selected from five year groups within the school (Year 7, age 11–12 ¼ 5 classes; Year 8, age 12–13 ¼ 7 classes; Year 9, age 13–14 ¼ 10 classes; Year 10, age 14–15 ¼ 4 classes; Year 11, age 15–16 ¼ 4 classes). The participants provided written informed assent and parental consent for the study, which was approved by the local University Ethics Committee. The school also provided written permission for the observations to take place. Four full-time male physical education teach-ers and a male pre-service education teacher (M age ¼ 35.8 years, age range: 24–52 years) also participated. The four full-time teachers were selected because of their recognized experience and knowledge in the teaching of games. The teaching staff were informed about the nature of the study and were informed the observations would focus on pedagogic approaches to teaching games. They were told this would include
technical approaches (i.e. skill-drill) and selected tactical peda-gogy (i.e. TGfU). Although the teaching staff indicated a preference for teaching via a skill-based instructional approach (informal personal communication) they were also competent in the demands and requirements of tactical-based instruction, such as TGfU. They were not shown a copy of the SOTG-PE instrument or the specific coding protocols of the observational tool. Furthermore, the teachers were requested not to modify their teaching behaviours or instructional content in any way during the observed classes. All the teaching staff provided written informed consent.
Observation instrument
The observation instrument used was the System for Observing the Teaching of Games in Physical Education (SOTG-PE) (Roberts and Fairclough, in press). The validity of the SOTG-PE and its development are described in detail elsewhere (Roberts and Fairclough, in press). However, to pro-vide clarity for interested readers a short summary will be provided. The SOTG-PE permits the simultaneous recording of an individual target child’s physical activity type, lesson activity context and teacher interactions. Data for different individual children and teachers can be summed to pro-vide information on the overall games lesson environment. Thus, the system provides for the
Roberts and Fairclough
259
simultaneous recording of students activities and behaviours during games lessons and allows comparisons among children within the same games lesson and over time. The System for Observing the Teaching of Games in Physical Education uses momentary time sampling tech-niques (10-seconds of observation followed by 10-seconds for recording what was observed), where the observation of a child’s activity and the lesson context are recorded during each interval. Partial interval coding techniques are also employed in the observation interval to record the ped-agogic interactions of the teacher. For example, at the record prompt the observer codes the target student’s activity type and the context of the lesson for the observed student. During the record prompt the observer also makes a decision regarding the teaching pedagogy employed by the teacher. This decision is based on whether the teaching is verbally or non-verbally promoting tech-nical or tactical-based instruction. If during the record prompt the teacher is not engaged in any of these behaviours ‘none’ is recorded.
During the SOTG-PE validation study inter-observer and intra-observer reliability scores were conducted to assess instrument and researcher reliability. This involved the first author and a trained observer simultaneously and independently coding 12 video recorded games lessons. The inter-observer analyses were conducted away from the school environment. The inter-observer agreement values for the SOTG-PE categories were student activity (89 percent), lesson context (92 percent) and teacher interactions (87 percent). To establish intra-observer agreement a trained observer used SOTG-PE to code two separate classes, one week apart. The intra-observer agree-ment scores for the observer were student activity (88 percent), lesson context (91 percent) and teacher interactions (87 percent). Inter- and intra-observer agreement levels for each SOTG-PE category surpassed the criterion level of 85 percent (Brewer and Jones, 2002).
Procedure
The observations for the study were conducted by the first author, who visited the school twice a week for a period of eight consecutive weeks between March and May 2009. A total of 30 physical education classes (50
minutes in length) were observed and recorded. The longest lesson was recorded at 49 minutes and the shortest 35 minutes.
Seventeen of the physical education classes were video recorded in the school sports hall from a viewing gallery which overlooked the lesson environment. Three classes (field-hockey) were recorded outdoors on the school’s astro-turf pitch and ten classes were recorded on the school’s grass fields (cricket ¼ 9; rounders ¼ 1). A video camera (Sony HDV 1080i) with a wide-angle lens was mounted onto a tripod and connected to a Wireless Microphone System (Sennheiser EW 100-ENG G2). This enabled the movements and responses of the target pupils as well as the verbal communication of the teachers to be captured. The input receiver of the wireless microphone system was attached to the video camera, thus allowing for the simultaneous recording of video footage and verbal comments (Becker and Wrisberg, 2008).
Before each lesson four pupils from the class register were randomly selected by the class teacher to be observed. Each randomly selected pupil wore a highly visible coloured vest, which contrasted with the school’s regulation physical education uniform. The recording of the lesson commenced when the first pupil entered the lesson environment and ended when the teacher dismissed the whole class. The first target pupil was observed and recorded for four minutes; the author used a timer display on the screen of the camera and a pre-recorded audio file to ensure accuracy. At the conclusion of the first four minutes the second target pupil was located and
260 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
observed, this procedure was followed for the third and fourth pupil and repeated sequentially until the class were dismissed by the teacher.
Data analysis
Individual data were initially screened for missing or implausible values. The dependent variables were the SOTG-PE categories, which were summed and divided by the total number of classes, to determine the mean percentage of lesson time spent in different activity types, lesson contexts and teacher interactions. The independent variables were the three games categories of invasion, striking/fielding, and net/wall. Tests for normality were conducted for each data set by employing Shapiro-Wilk tests, which revealed that the pupil activity data were distributed normally, but the lesson context and teacher interaction data exhibited a moderately non-normal distribution. A one-way between groups analysis of variance with post-hoc test were performed to explore the potential differences with each of the pupil activity variables between the games categories. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests were conducted on the lesson context and teacher interaction variables. Follow up Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to determine where significant differ-ences occurred. In addition, relationships between pupil activity, lesson context and teacher inter-action variables were examined using Spearman’s rank order correlations. All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences v.15 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA), and the alpha level was set at p < 0.05.
Results
A total of 30 physical education games classes were observed, resulting in 1,379 minutes of overall video footage coded using the SOTG-PE. After accounting for the time taken for pupils to change into their physical education uniforms, the longest lesson was recorded at 49 minutes and the short-est 35 minutes. Each teacher was observed on six separate occasions. A summary of the descriptive results, including percentages of time, means and standard deviations for the pupil activity contexts are displayed in Table 1.
Descriptive results for the non-normally distributed lesson context and teacher interaction data including minimum and maximum values, median
scores and the inter-quartile range (ICR) for the different games categories are presented in the Tables 2, 3 and 4.
Table 1. Proportion of lesson time in student activity type
SOTG-PE variable n
Student activity type (% )Inactive 30 Motor response 30 Locomotion 30 Motor/locomotion 30Motor/locomotion off-task 30
Low High
34.80 64.80 2.10 15.90
11.40 44.90 0.00 8.30
4.20 25.70
M SD
49.29 8.90 8.11 3.28
30.46 9.77 4.16 2.29
7.95 4.45
Roberts and Fairclough 261
Table 2. Proportion of class time in lesson context and teacher interactions for invasion games
SOTG-PE variable Low
Lesson context (% )Warm-up 0.00 General management 18.30 Technical practice 0.00 Applied skill practice 0.00 Modified game 0.00 Small-sided game 0.00 Full-game 0.00 Free play 0.00 Other 0.00 Teacher interactions (% )Verbal pro- tactical 4.20 Non verbal pro-tactical 0.00 Verbal pro-technical 30.56 Non verbal pro-technical 0.00None 9.00
Table 3. Proportion of class time in lesson context and teacher interactions for striking and fielding games
SOTG-PE variable Low
Lesson Context (%)Warm-up 0.00 General management 35.40 Technical practice 0.00 Applied skill practice 0.00 Modified game 0.00 Small-sided game 0.00 Full-game 0.00 Free play 0.00 Other 0.00 Teacher Interactions (%)Verbal pro- tactical 0.70 Non verbal pro-tactical 0.00 Verbal pro-technical 28.57 Non verbal pro-technical 0.0None 12.50
The results of the ANOVA with post-hoc tests revealed no significant difference in the percentage of time the pupils were engaged in the various pupil activity codes across the three games cate-gories. The highest proportion of lesson time was recorded in the inactive category. The highest recorded percentage of lesson time spent inactive was 52.8 percent in the striking and fielding category. The percentage of lesson time which recorded the highest activity level was
262 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
Table 4. Proportion of class time in lesson context and teacher interactions for net/wall games
SOTG-PE variable Low
Lesson Context (%)Warm-up 0.00 General management 18.30 Technical practice 0.00 Applied skill practice 0.00 Modified game 0.00 Small-sided game 0.00 Full-game 0.00 Free play 0.00 Other 0.00 Teacher Interactions (%)Verbal pro- tactical 5.10 Non verbal pro-tactical 0.00 Verbal pro-technical 27.62 Non verbal pro-technical 0.08None 14.20
locomotion (33.4 percent). This was recorded in the invasion game category. A complete list of results from the ANOVA are summarized in Table 5.
Lesson context
The largest recorded proportion of lesson time was recorded in the general management category (47.4 percent). In the practice categories of technical practice and applied skill practice the highest recorded times were 11.4 percent and 9.8 percent, respectively. For the specific games categories ahigh of 74.2 percent was recorded for full game and a low of 0.0 percent for modified game. During the three game categories, there were significant differences in the time spent in the warm up (w2 (2) 12.0, p ¼ .002), general management (w2 (2) 8.18, p ¼ .01), technical practice (w2 (2) 4.81, p ¼ .01), applied skill practice (w2 (2) 8.33, p ¼ .001) and modified game (w2 (2) 4.80, p ¼ .001).The allocated time for the warm up (7.64 percent) and general management (47.4 percent) was significantly greater in striking and fielding classes than net/wall (1.07 percent and 33.6 percent, respectively, p < .005) and invasion games (3.93 percent and 44.5 percent respectively, p < .005), however the pupils spent more time in modified games contexts during invasion games classes
Roberts and Fairclough 263
(5.17 percent) than striking and fielding (4.96 percent) and net/wall (0.0 percent). There was a significantly higher percentage of lesson time dedicated to technical practice in net/wall games (11.4 percent) than invasion games (6.41 percent) and striking and fielding (10.8 percent). The largest percentage of lesson time dedicated to applied skill practice was net/wall (9.80 percent), which was significantly higher than invasion games (3.54 percent) and striking and fielding (2.5 percent). Significantly more time was spent in modified games in invasion games (5.17 percent) than net/wall games (0.0 percent). The full-game category recorded a high of (28.5 percent) in invasion games to a low of (9.31 percent) in striking/fielding games; however these differences were not significant.
Teacher interactions
The highest recorded teacher interactions across the three games categories were verbally pro-moting technical behaviour (40.9 percent). Time spent verbally promoting tactical behaviour was 16.7 percent of lesson time. Non-verbally promoting technical behaviour was evident during 3.0 percent of lesson time and non-verbally promoting tactical behaviour was recorded at 0.9 percent of lesson time. Promoting neither technical nor tactical behaviour was recorded at 37.3 percentacross the various games categories. Teacher interactions also differed significantly between var-ious games categories in relation to promoting verbal technical behaviour (w2 (2) ¼ 8.18, P < .005), and promoting verbal tactical behaviour (w2 (2) ¼ 7.41, P < .005). Follow up analyses revealed theteachers spent significantly more time verbally promoting tactical behaviour in invasion games classes (24.4 percent), than net/wall (13.1 percent, P < .001) and striking and fielding games (12.0 percent, P < .005). The teachers also spent significantly more time promoting technical beha-viour during invasion games (42.2 percent) than net/wall games (38.6 percent, P < .005).
Pupil activity, lesson context and teacher interaction relationships
Spearman’s rank order correlations revealed a significant positive relationship between pupil inactivity and general management (r ¼ 0.62, P < 0.01). There were also significant negative relationships between pupil inactivity and locomotion (r ¼ 0.-78, P < 0.05), motor response (r ¼ 0.-60, P < 0.05), and full-game (r ¼ 0.-49, P < 0.05). A significant positive relationship was found between motor response and applied skill practice (r ¼ 0.52, P < 0.02). There was also a signif-icant positive relationship between technical practice and motor/locomotion (r ¼ 0.41, P < 0.02) and verbally promoting technical behaviour (r ¼ 0.49, P < 0.05). A significant inverse association was observed between verbally promoting tactical behaviour and technical practice (r ¼ 0.-48, P < 0.05), however a significant positive relationship was found between verbally promoting tactical behaviour and modified game (r ¼ 0.46, P < 0.01).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the pupil activity, lesson contexts and teacher interac-tions during physical education games classes using a specific systematic observation instrument (SOTG-PE).
Pupil activity context
The pupils in our study were observed to be inactive for a high proportion of lesson time and this
was consistent across the three games categories. It should be noted that the inactivity code was
264 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
activated if the pupils were sitting, waiting, or standing and not engaged in any specific motor or locomotive content. These high levels of inactivity were positively associated with the general management category which encompassed teachers providing instruction and explanation. The reported high levels of inactivity (i.e. standing) are similar to those reported in a recent physical activity study using the System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT) (Chow et al., 2008). In the present study there was a strong negative relationship between levels of inactivity and when the pupils were engaged in playing a full-game. This relationship may be explained by the organization of the teams during full-game play. For instance, two teams would be engaged in per-forming while the remaining teams would be inactive as observers. The playing of a full-game was a strategy adopted by the teachers who taught the older pupils, in particular, the pupils in the later stage of secondary education (aged 15–16 years). The format for these classes normally involved a whole class warm-up followed by a full-game. In the early stage of secondary education (aged 11–14 years) the pupils were engaged in more technical and skill based practice. These findings were consistent between each of the teachers observed. Our recorded inactivity levels of 52.8 per-cent, 45.3 percent and 48.6 percent are lower than the reported 64 percent in an ALT-PE basketball study (Cousineau and Luke, 1990). However, these levels of inactivity are comparable with results from a recent study examining physical activity levels within the revised English National Curricu-lum Physical Education (NCPE) (QCA, 2007a; Mersh and Fairclough, 2010). This particular study reported high inactivity levels among boys (53.1 percent) and girls (65.3 percent), these were attrib-uted to high levels of teacher instruction and management contexts. Recent changes to the English NCPE (QCA, 2007b) include the adoption of six content themes; the study above reported on three of these themes (1) ‘Outwitting Opponents’ (2) ‘Accurate Replication’ and (3) ‘Exercising Safely and Effectively’. These revisions to the English NCPE involve the pupils in more cognitive decision-making as well as the teachers providing opportunities for the pupils to observe each other and make simplistic judgements about performance. In the current study the highest percentage of activity (i.e. locomotion/motor locomotion) was recorded in the invasion game category (33.4 percent) (i.e. Eur-opean handball, basketball and field hockey). This finding is consistent with previous studies report-ing physical activity during games classes (Fairclough and Stratton, 2005).
Lesson context
The lesson context percentages across the three games categories revealed that the majority of the lesson time was devoted to general management (42.98 percent) and a full-game (20.65 percent). The percentage of class time recorded in the general management category is consistent with pre-vious physical education studies (Chow et al., 2008) however; the full-game percentage (20.65 per-cent) is higher than a combination of the technical practice and applied skill practice categories (13.71 percent). The proportion of time allocated to technical and applied skill practice is lower (32 percent) than the skill practice recorded using SOFIT in a recent physical activity study (Chow et al., 2008). Interestingly, modified games was recorded for only 3.89 percent of lesson time across the three games categories. This finding should be of interest to researchers and educators who advocate the inclusion of modified games and tactical games concepts as a strategy for the teaching and learning of games in physical education. Modified games and tactical instructional approaches are reported to be effective in promoting tactical decision-making, however, these con-clusions are drawn from studies which employed a multiple treatment design, and the instructional approaches adopted by the teachers were pre-determined by specific treatments and controls (Holt et al., 2006; Lee and Ward, 2009). Our study, however, did
not adopt a multiple treatment design
Roberts and Fairclough 265
and in essence asked the question ‘what is going on here’? The evidence from our data suggest the teachers devoted more class time to technical and applied-skill based practices, and full-sided games than modified games.
The relatively low percentage of class time devoted to modified games was a surprise, as the teachers in this study indicated (via a personal correspondence) the importance of decision making in games and having the knowledge and understanding to apply selected TGfU principles. It has been suggested that devising and teaching modified games can be problematic for teachers of physical education (Light, 2002; Rovegno, 1988). In addition, it has been reported that teachers prefer the safety of skill and drill practices and are reluctant to engage their pupils in the instability of modified and conditioned games (Williams and Hodges, 2005). Recent scientific studies have supported the wider use of small-sided and modified games in developing perceptual, cognitive and motor skills (Ford et al., 2010). The evidence from this small sample must obviously be viewed with some caution, however, further studies into the widespread acceptance of modified games and the impact of TGM pedagogy on teachers of physical education may be worthy of further investigation.
Teacher interactions
Verbally promoting technical behaviour was the largest recorded teaching interaction across the three games categories. The importance of instruction and concurrent feedback in the learning, teaching and assessment of pupils has been reported previously (Hastie, 1994). The promotion of technical behaviour was proportionally higher in both technical and skill related practices as well as small-sided and full-games. Moreover, the SOTG-PE recorded a significant positive relation-ship between technical practice and motor/locomotion and verbally promoting technical beha-viour. It was evident that the teachers in our study were more comfortable with pro-technical approaches to teaching physical education as there was little evidence to support the use of pro-tactical pedagogic approaches.
Due to the quantitative design of our study and the recruitment of participants from a single-gender school, our study contained a number of limitations. First, the quantitative data provided no insight into the personal teaching philosophies of the teachers recruited to this study. Therefore, it was not possible to ascertain why the teachers were engaged in specific instructional approaches. Any further investigations into the pedagogic approaches adopted by teachers in the teaching of games should consider combing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Ultimately, this may provide some insight as to why teachers adopt certain pedagogic strategies. Second, the par-ticipants in this study were limited to one boys’ school, and therefore a recommendation for further study is to include a range of schools and genders. Third, this study did not observe any games from the target games category. This omission was due to conflicting issues regarding staff absenteeism and changes to the formal school time-table.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine pupil activity levels, lesson context and teacher inter-actions from three different games categories using a specific systematic observation instrument (SOTG-PE). The pupils were engaged in high levels of inactivity and spent high proportions of lesson time listening to teaching instructions. The context of the lessons was predominantly general management. The observed teaching interactions indicated that the teachers adopted more
266 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
pro-technical approaches and there was little evidence to support the use of a pro-tactical pedagogy. While the feasibility, reliability and validity of the SOTG-PE in additional contexts, such as girls and co-educational physical education, requires further assessment, this study has indicated that SOTG-PE can be a useful instrument in evaluating and recording the teaching of games in a physical education environment.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the teachers and the children who were involved in this study.
References
Alexander K, Penney D (2005) Teaching under the influence: Feeding Games for Understanding into the Sport Education development refinement cycle. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(3): 287–301.
Allison S, Thorpe R (1997) A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skill approach versus a game for understanding approach. British Journal of Phys-ical Education: Autumn.
Becker AJ, Wrisberg CA (2008) Effective coaching in action: Observations of legendary collegiate basketball coach, Pat Summitt. The Sport Psychologist 22(2): 197–211.
Brewer JC, Jones LR (2002) A five-stage process for establishing contextually valid systematic observation instruments: The case of rugby union. The Sport Psychologist 16(2): 138–159.
Brooker R, Kirk D, Braiuka S, and Bransgrove A (2000) Implementing a game sense approach to teaching junior high school basketball in a naturalistic setting. European Physical Education Review 6(1): 7–26.
Bunker D, Thorpe R (1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education 18(1): 5–8.
Butler IJ (2006) Curriculum constructions of ability: Enhancing learning through Teaching Games for Under-standing (TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport, Education and Society 11(3): 243–258.
Butler IJ (2005) TGfU pet-agogy: Old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(3): 225–240.
Chow BC, McKenzie TL, and Louie L (2008) Children’s physical activity and environmental influences dur-ing elementary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27(1): 38–50.
Cobb P, Yackel E (1996)Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of develop-mental research. Educational Psychologist 31(3–4):175–190.
Cousineau WJ, Luke MD (1990) Relationship between teacher expectations and academic learning time in sixth grade physical education lessons. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 9(4): 262–271.
Evans J, Clarke C (1988) Changing the face of physical education. In: Evans J (ed.) Teachers, teaching and control. London: Falmer.
Fairclough SJ, Stratton G, and Baldwin G (2002) The contribution of secondary school physical education to lifetime physical activity. European Physical Education Review 8(1): 69–84.
Fairclough SJ, Stratton G (2005) Physical activity levels in middle and high school physical education: A review. Pediatric Exercise Science 17(3): 17–220.
Fairclough SJ, Mersh R (2010) Physical activity, lesson context, and teaching behaviours within the revised English National Curriculum for Physical Education: A case study of one school. European Physical Edu-cation Review 16(1): 29–45.
Ford PR, Yates I, and Williams M (2010) An analysis of practice activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: Exploring the link between science and application. Journal of Sports Sciences 28(5): 483–495.
Fosnot CT (1996) Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. French KE, Thomas JR (1987) The relation of knowledge development to children’s basketball performance.
Journal of Sport Psychology 9(1): 15–32.
Roberts and Fairclough 267
Garc´ıa Lo´pez LM, Contreas Jorda´n OR, Penney D, and Chandler T (2009) The role transfer in games teaching: Implications for the development of the sports curriculum. European Physical Education Review 15(1): 47–63.
Gordon M (2009) Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivism: Reflections on lessons from practice, Educational Studies, 45: 39–58.
Gower C, Capel S (2004) Newly qualified physical education teachers’ experiences of developing subject knowledge prior to, during and after a Postgraduate Certificate in Education course. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 9(2): 165–183.
Gre´haigne JF, Richard JF, and Griffin LL (2005) Teaching and Learning Team Sports and Games. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Griffin L, Oslin JL, and Mitchell SA (1995) An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching net games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 66: A–64.
Hastie PA (1994) Selected teacher behaviours and pupil ALT-PE in secondary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 13(3): 242–259.
Holt EJ, Ward P, and Wallhead TL (2006) The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in young adult soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 11(2): 101–118.
Holt NL, Strean WB, and Bengoechea EG (2002) Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: new avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2): 162–176.
Kirk D, MacPhail A (2002) Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2): 177–192.
Laws C (1994) Rhetorical justification for new approaches to teaching games: are teachers deluding them-selves? Proceedings of the 10th Commonwealth and Scientific Congress, University of Victoria, Canada.
Lee MA, Ward P (2009) Generalization of tactics in tag rugby from practice to games in middle school phys-ical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14(2): 189–207.
Light R (2002). The social nature of games: Pre-service primary teachers’ first experiences of TGfU, European Physical Education Review. 8(3): 291–310.
Light R (2004) Coaches’ experiences of Game Sense: Opportunities and challenges. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 9(2): 115–131.
Light R, Fawns R (2003) Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action through TGfU. Quest 55(2): 161–176. Light R, Wallian N (2008) A constructivist-informed approach to teaching swimming. Quest 60(3): 387–404. Magill RA (1990) Motor Learning is meaningful for physical educators, Quest, 42(2): 126–133.McNeill MC, Fry JM, Wright SC, Tan CWK, and Rossi T (2008) Structuring time and questioning to achieve
tactical awareness in games lessons. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 13(3): 231–249.Mersh R Fairclough SJ (2010) Physical activity, lesson context, and teaching behaviours within the revised
English National Curriculum for Physical Education: A case study of one school. European Physical Education Review 16(1): 29–45.
Metzler MW (1989) A review of research on time in sport pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Edu-cation 8(2): 87–103.
Metzler MW (2005) Instructional Models for Physical Education. Michigan: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers, Inc.
Mitchell SA, Griffin LL, and Oslin JL (1995) The effects of two instructional approaches on game perfor-mance. Pedagogy in Practice: Teaching and Coaching in Physical Education and Sports 1(1): 36–48.
QCA (2007a) Physical Education Programme of Study: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. URL: www.curriculum.qca.org.
QCA (2007b) Physical Education: Programme of Study for Key Stage 3 and Attainment Target. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Oslin J, Mitchell S (2006) Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In Kirk D, Macdonald D, and O’Sullivan M (ed.) The Handbook of Physical Education. Sage Publications: London, 627–651.
Phillips DC (1995) The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. EducationalResearcher 24(7): 5–12.
268 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
Rink JE (1996) Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 15(4): 397–398.
Roberts SJ (2011) Teaching games for understanding: The difficulties and challenges experienced by partic-ipation cricket coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 16(1): 33–48.
Roberts SJ, Fairclough SJ (in press) A five-stage process for the development and validation of a systematic observation instrument: The System for Observing the Teaching of Games in Physical Education (SOTG-PE). European Journal of Physical Education.
Rovegno I (1998) The development of in-service teachers’ knowledge of a constructivist approach to physical education: Teaching beyond activities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69(2): 147–62.
Rovegno I, Bandhauer D (1997) Norms of the school culture that facilitated teacher adoption and learning of a constructivist approach to physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 16(4): 401–25. Siedentop D, Tousignant M, and Parker M (1982) Academic learning time – Physical education, 1982
revi-sion coding manual. Unpublished manuscript.
Siedentop D, Tannehill D (2000) Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education, fourth edition. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Silverman S (1991) Research on teaching in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 62(4): 352–364.
Sweeting T, Rink JE (1999) Effects of direct instruction and environmentally designed instruction on the pro-cess and product characteristics of a fundamental skill. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 18(2): 216–233.
Tallir IB, Musch E, Valcke M, and Lenoir M (2005) Effects of two instructional approaches for basketball on decision-making and recognition ability. International Journal of Sport Psychology 36(2): 107–126.
Tinning R (2006) Theoretical orientations in physical education. In: Kirk D, Macdonald D, and O’Sullivan M (ed.), The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publications, 369–385.
Turner AP, Martinek TJ (1999) An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70(3): 286–296.
Wallian N, Chang C-W (2006) Development and learning of motor skill competencies. In: Kirk D, Macdonald D, and O’Sullivan M (ed.), The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publications, 292–311.
Williams MA, Hodges NJ (2005) Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: Challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences 23(6): 637–650.
Windschitl M (2002) Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers, Review of Educational Research, 72: 131–175.
Wright J, Forrest G (2007) A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction and games centred approaches to teaching. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 12(3): 273–288.
Wright S, McNeill M, Fry J, and Wang J (2005) Teaching teachers to play and teach games. Physical Edu-cation and Sports Pedagogy 10(1): 61–82.
Biographical details
Simon Roberts is the Programme Leader for Sports Coaching and a Senior Lecturer in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy at Liverpool John Moores University.
Stuart Fairclough is a Reader in Physical Activity Education at Liverpool John Moores University.
European Physical Education Review http://epe.sagepub.com/
Cara-cara kegiatan analisis siswa penelitian, hubungan-hubungan pelajaran dan guru
Observational analysis of student activity models, lesson contexts and teacher
Interaksi pada saat kelas-kelas permainan dalam sekolah menengah (11 tahun-tahun16) fisik
educationSimon Roberts and Stuart Fairclough
European Physical Education Review 2011 17: 255
DOI: 10.1177/1356336X11420222
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://epe.sagepub.com/content/17/2/255
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:North West Counties Physical Education Association
Additional services and information for European Physical Education Review can be found at:
Downloaded from epe.sagepub.com by ika kartikawati on October 25, 2013
Analisis pengamatan mode mahasiswa kegiatan, pelajaran konteks dan interaksi guru selama kelas game di SMA (11-16 tahun) pendidikan jasmani European Physical
Education Review 17(2) 255–268
ª The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1356336X11420222
epe.sagepub.com
Simon Roberts Liverpool John Moores University
dan
Stuart Fairclough Liverpool John Moores University
Abstrak
Tujuan ini penelitian ini adalah untuk menguji aktivitas siswa, pelajaran dan guru konteks interaksi-tions selama pendidikan jasmani sekolah menengah, menggunakan baru divalidasi sistematis pengamatan instrumen termedthe SystemforObserving yang TeachingofGamesinPhysical diamati dan direkam menggunakan SOTG-PE. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan para murid terlibat dalam tingkat tinggi ofinactivity. Thehighest tingkat ofinactivity wasrecorded (52,8
persen) dalam mencolok / tangkas category.Inthelessoncontextcategorygeneralmanagementwasrecordedhighest (47.4percent). Interaksi guru tercatat tertinggi di tiga kategori game yang secara verbal perilaku teknis pro-Moting (40,9 persen).
Kata kunci observasi langsung, permainan, pendidikan jasmani, SOTG-PE, pengajaran
Penulis yang sesuai:
Simon Roberts, Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan, Masyarakat, dan Hiburan, Liverpool John Moores University, IM Marsh Kampus, Barkhill Road, Liverpool, L17 6BD Email: s.roberts2 @ ljmu.ac.uk
256 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
Pengenalan
Ia telah dilaporkan pengajaran tim tradisional dan pertandingan-pertandingan individual cenderung untuk mendominasi kurikulum sekolah (Dll Brooker., 2000; Dll Fairclough., 2002; Oslin and Mitchell, 2006). Sifat permainan siswa yang mana menyertai dan belajar, sering bergantung pada kondisi objektif (Butler, 2006). Ini bisa meliputi: variasi-variasi kebudayaan (Garc´ıa dll Lo´pez., 2009); waktu kurikulum (Gower dan Capel, 2004); ketersediaan fasilitas serta melembagakan tujuan seperti memenuhi tingkat-tingkat direkomendasikan kegiatan fisik (Fairclough dan Stratton, 2005). Nilai inheren pembelajaran bermain permainan-permainan dilaporkan untuk memperpanjang di luar hanya pelaksanaan fisik keahlian motor dan teknik. Partisipasi dalam hadiah-hadiah olahraga beregu siswa dengan peluang membangunkan keterampilan-keterampilan pengambilan keputusan (Dll Gre´haigne., 2005). Lebih-lebih lagi partisipasi dalam satu permainan tim juga termasuk manfaat-manfaat afektif, seperti pembelajaran sosial dan emosional.Namun demikian, perdebatan pertandingan-pertandingan yang ada di sekeliling pendidikan belum berfokus di 'yang mana' permainan mengajar, tetapi 'bagaimana' permainan harus diajarkan dari awal (Dll Wright., 2005). Ini perdebatan telah menyatakan dari awal usaha oleh peneliti memberikan bukti unggul untuk satu pendekat (e.g. tactics) mengajar permainan terhadap lain pendekat (Allison dan Thorpe, 1997; Prancis dan Thomas, 1987; Lapangan bersalju, 1996; Turner dan Martinek, 1999, 1999). Pendekatan berbasis teknik akan mengajar permainan dilaporkan mengikuti satu proses tiga peringkat urutan terdiri dari pemanasan, keahlian / kegiatan teknis , dan satu kegiatan berbasis permainan di akhir (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982). Asal pendekatan berbasis teknik tradisional atau pendekatan latihan keahlian, sebagai ini juga dikenal (Dll McNeill., 2008) terletak di ilmu filsafat tentang asal positivistic psikologi beha-vioural dan khususnya teori pembelajaran pakar tingkah laku (Tinning, 2006; Dll Wright., 2005). Teori pembelajaran pakar tingkah laku adalah dilaporkan untuk berunsur pengembangan keterampilan-keterampilan spesifik dan dapat diamati. Lebih lanjut pakar tingkah laku pendekatan untuk belajar sebagian besar berunsur peran faktor-faktor eksternal, yang termasuk antara lain peran guru (Wallian and Chang, 2006). Lebih-lebih lagi satu pendekatan pakar tingkah laku sampai pembelajaran posisi di tengah-tengah guru proses belajar. Akibatnya, guru mempunyai tanggung jawab untuk keputusan-keputusan bongkah agogic utama, seperti organisasi dan pengiriman tugas belajar, memudahkan kuantitas dan kualitas umpan balik , dan menetapkan jadwal untuk menjalankan.Dalam teks komprehensifnya Instructional Models for Physical Pendidikan, Metzler pro vides satu deskripsi informatif berhubungan dengan pendidikan bermacam-macam mencontoh bahwa tersedia untuk guru fisik pendidikan. Menurut Metzler, model pengajaran pada umumnya berhubungan dengan teori pembelajaran pakar tingkah laku adalah pembelajaran langsung. Dari satu perspektif penelitian pedagogis, pembelajaran langsung dilaporkan untuk menjadi pendekatan pedagogis diutamakan dalam pengajaran teknik dan keahlian motor (Silverman, 1991; Sweeting dan Lapangan Bersalju, 1999). Sifat-sifat pedagogis berhubungan dengan pembelajaran langsung termasuk: instruksi objektif transparan, urutan chunking bahan, meninjau ulang dulu mengajarkan isi, pengiriman keahlian-keahlian baru, peluang untuk menjalankan , dan menambah umpan balik dari guru (Sweeting and Rink, 1999). Me-riset effec-tiveness
Roberts and Fairclough 257
25 persen waktu pelajaran mempersembahkan kepada pengetahuan mata pelajaran, khususnya teknik dan keahlian motor, 53 persen waktu pelajaran mempersembahkan kepada motor mata pelajaran, yang mencakup peluang-peluang praktik dan permainan. Akhirnya, 22 persen waktu pelajaran terlibat pada umumnya isi, yang mencakup transisi antara kegiatan, manajemen dan istirahat (Cousineau and Luke, 1990). Temuan-temuan ini sebagian besar didukung dalam satu kemudian studi, yang melaporkan murid dalam kelas-kelas PE menghabiskan proporsi tinggi waktu pelajaran dalam manajemen, transisi dan menunggu, (Siedentop and Tannehill, 2000). Instrumen akan membebani kualitas instruksi fisik pendidikan seperti ALT-PE dirancang secara umum untuk satu kisaran hubungan-hubungan fisik pendidikan, tetapi tidak khususnya untuk lingkungan pertandingan-pertandingan. Seperti halnya, pada saat kelas-kelas permainan ALT-PE membuat tidak ada perbedaan antara bermacam-macam kategori-kategori praktik dan permainan alternatif membentuk bahwa siswa boleh terlibat dalam. Lebih lanjut ALT-PE tidak dipertimbangkan pendekatan-pendekatan bersifat pelajaran alternatif seperti Teaching Games untuk Kesepahaman (TGfU; Bunker dan Thorpe, 1982) dan permainan taktis konsep.Berbeda dengan pendekatan berbasis teknik tradisional mengajar permainan, pendekatan-pendekatan taktis berasal dari teori pembelajaran konstruktivis (Fosnot, 1996; Dll Tallir., 2005). Walaupun emer-gence constructivism sebagai satu teori pembelajaran diakui dalam 1980-an dan 1990-an, perkembangannya telah sebagian besar terakreditasi untuk karya sebelumnya Dewey, Piaget dan Vygotsky (Fosnot, 1996; Bibir-bibir Phil, 1995). Constructivism dan teorinya belajar dapat mengajukan banyak tantangan untuk guru fisik pendidikan (Rovegno, 1998; Rovegno and bandhauer, 1997). Mengadopsi satu pedagogis per spective yang memprioritaskan guru sebagai satu kemudahan pembelajaran dan tidak satu pemancar pengetahuan mungkin adalah ganjil kepada model pendidikan dialami oleh banyak guru-guru pada saat tahun-tahun sekolah mereka sendiri (Cobb dan Yackel, 1996; Berikan cahaya dan Wallian, 2008). Lebih-lebih lagi studi telah melaporkan bahwa prinsip-prinsip konstruktivis kompleks untuk kedua-dua guru (Gordon, 2009; Rovegno and band-hauer, 1997; Rovegno, 1998) dan pelatih-pelatih olahraga disebabkan oleh kesulitan berhubungan dengan mengadopsi prinsip-prinsip konstruktivis ke pedagogi bersifat pelajaran. Awal guru-guru karier dan guru-guru stu-dent dilaporkan untuk mengalami paling kesulitan mengadopsi konstruktivis pendekatan karena bermacam-macam tuntutan-tuntutan pedagogis diletakkan di atas mereka, yang termasuk: kegiatan-kegiatan jenis penyelidikan, mengelola interaksi siswa, mengerti isi pedagogis , dan menaksir pengetahuan murid (Rovegno, 1998; Windschitl, 2002). Tuntutan-tuntutan ini dapat sering perbedaan dengan pendekat tradisional lebih sederhana mengatakan, menunjukkan , dan mengebor (Dll McNeill., 2008).Dalam fisik pendidikan, teori pembelajaran konstruktivis berperan sebagai satu saluran untuk pengembangan pertandingan-pertandingan konstruktivis mengajar pendekatan (Dll Brooker., 2000) seperti Teaching Games untuk Kesepahaman (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) dan Tactical Games Model (TGM) (Metzler, 2005). Fitur-fitur konstruktivis TGfU and TGM termasuk penggunaan pertandingan-pertandingan dimodifikasi, kegiatan-kegiatan penyelidikan, peluang bagi siswa mendemonstrasikan pemahaman mereka , dan siswa menerima tanggung jawab untuk mereka sendiri pembelajaran (Dll Holt., 2002). Untuk ini pendekatan untuk berkesan, ia telah disarankan bahwa guru mengikuti satu
berorientasikan penyelidikan, pemecahan masalah, mendekati dan mengadopsi satu tanda tanya mendasarkan strategi (Light and Fawns, 2003; Wallian and Chang, 2006; 258
European Physical Education Review 17(2)
studi sekitarnya TGfU and TGM coba untuk menyediakan dukungan untuk satu pendekatan mengajar permainan terhadap lain (Allison dan Thorpe, 1997; Prancis dan Thomas, 1987; Lapangan bersalju, 1996; Turner dan Martinek, 1999). Walaupun ini awal usaha memberikan dukungan empiris untuk permainan taktis konsep ada bukti kecil yang TGfU and TGM digunakan secara meluas pendekatan-pendekatan bersifat pelajaran oleh guru fisik pendidikan.Oleh karena itu, tujuan studi ini adalah untuk menggunakan satu alat penelitian khusus permainan; (satu) membandingkan frekuensi cara-cara kegiatan mahasiswa, hubungan-hubungan pelajaran , dan (b) interaksi-interaksi guru pada saat invasi, menangkap / dinding , dan mencolok / menampilkan kelas-kelas permainan , dan menyiasat hubungan antara interaksi-interaksi mengajarkan ing, kegiatan mahasiswa , dan hubungan-hubungan pelajaran pada saat pertandingan-pertandingan fisik pendidikan kelas.
Metode
Peserta dan menetapkan
Peserta dalam studi ini merekrut dari satu kelamin tunggal yang besar, sekolah menengah terletak di yang barat laut Inggris. Sekolah merekrut kepada studi ini mengikuti syarat-syarat untuk fisik pendidikan seperti yang berangkat dalam NCPE. Selain syarat-syarat menggambarkan di kurikulum dirumuskan sekolah memberikan murid dengan peluang akan terlibat dalam olahraga sekolah com petitive. Contoh olahraga tersedia termasuk: kesatuan rugby, hoki lapangan, jengkerik , dan bola tangan Eropa. Peserta (740 anak lelaki, rentang usia 11–16 tahun) memilih secara acak dari lima tahun berkelompok dalam sekolah (Tahun 7, usia 11–12 ¼ 5 kelas; Tahun 8, usia 12–13 ¼ 7 kelas; Tahun 9, usia 13–14 ¼ 10 kelas; Tahun 10, usia 14–15 ¼ 4 kelas; Tahun 11, usia 15–16 ¼ 4 kelas). Peserta memberikan persetujuan memberitahukan tertulis dan izin dari orang tua untuk studi tersebut, yang disetujui oleh University lokal Ethics Komite. Sekolah juga memberikan izin tertulis untuk pengamatan terjadi. Empat fisik pendidikan laki-laki sepenuh waktu mengajarkan ers dan satu guru pendidik prapelayanan laki-laki (Usia M ¼ 35.8 tahun, rentang usia: 24–52 tahun) juga berpartisipasi. Empat guru-guru sepenuh waktu itu dipilih karena pengalaman dan pengetahuan diakui mereka dalam pengajaran permainan. Staf pengajar telah diinformasikan tentang sifat studi dan telah diinformasikan pengamatan akan berfokus pada pendekatan-pendekatan pedagogis mengajar permainan. Mereka diberitahu ini akan mencakup pendekatan teknis (i.e. skill-drill) dan memilih peda-gogy taktis. Meskipun staf pengajar menunjukkan sebuah pilihan untuk mengajar lewat satu pendekat berbasis keahlian (komunikasi pribadi tidak resmi) mereka juga mampu dalam tuntutan dan persyaratan instruksi berbasis taktis, seperti TGfU. Mereka tidak diperlihatkan satu salinan instrumen SOTG-PE atau penyandian spesifik protokol alat penelitian. Lebih lanjut guru diminta untuk tidak memodifikasi perilaku-perilaku pengajaran mereka atau dalam cara apapun materi pembelajaran pada saat kelas-kelas diamati. Semua staf pengajar memberikan persetujuan yang dikabari tertulis.
Instrumen pengawasan
Instrumen pengawasan digunakan adalah System for Observing Teaching of Games dalam Physical Pendidikan (Roberts dan Fairclough, dalam pers). Kebenaran SOTG-PE dan perkembangannya diuraikan secara rinci di tempat lain (Roberts dan Fairclough, dalam pers). Namun demikian, kepada kejelasan pro lihat di atas untuk pembaca-pembaca tertarik satu ringkasan pendek akan disediakan. SOTG-PE mengizinkan rekaman serentak jenis kegiatan fisik anak target individual, konteks aktivitas dan guru pelajaran interaksi. Data untuk anak sendiri-sendiri berbeda dan guru bisa disimpulkan kepada informasi pro lihat di atas di pertandingan-pertandingan keseluruhan lingkungan pelajaran. Dengan demikian, sistem memberikan untukRoberts and Fairclough 259
rekaman serentak kegiatan-kegiatan siswa dan perilaku pada saat pelajaran-pelajaran permainan dan memberikan perbandingan di antara anak dalam permainan sama pelajaran dan dari waktu ke waktu. Sistem untuk Observing Teaching of Games dalam Physical Pendidikan menggunakan penyampelan waktu sebentar teknik niques (10 detik pengamatan diikuti oleh 10 detik untuk rekaman apa diamati), di mana pengamatan satu kegiatan anak dan konteks pelajaran dicatat pada saat setiap interval. Teknik-teknik penyandian interval tidak lengkap juga bekerja di interval pengamatan membukukan interaksi-interaksi bongkah agogic guru. Misalnya, pada catatan mendorong jenis kegiatan siswa target, kode-kode pengamat dan konteks pelajaran untuk siswa diamati. Pada saat catatan mendorong pengamat juga membuat sebuah keputusan mengenai pedagogi pengajaran diperkerjakan oleh guru. Ini keputusan berdasarkan kepada apakah pengajaran secara lisan atau tidak secara lisan mempromosikan instruksi teknik nical atau berbasis taktis. Jika pada saat catatan mendorong guru tidak terlibat dalam yang mana saja dari perilaku-perilaku ini 'tak satu pun' apakah dicatat.Pada saat studi pengesahan SOTG-PE keterandalan antara pengamat dan intra pengamat skor dilakukan untuk membebani keterandalan instrumen dan peneliti. Ini melibatkan penulis pertama dan satu pengamat terlatih secara serentak dan secara bebas penyandian 12 video mencatat pelajaran-pelajaran permainan. Analisis-analisis antara pengamat dilakukan jauh dari lingkungan sekolah. Perjanjian antara pengamat nilai untuk kategori-kategori SOTG-PE adalah kegiatan mahasiswa (89 percent), konteks dan guru pelajaran interaksi. Membentuk perjanjian intra pengamat satu pengamat terlatih menggunakan SOTG-PE kepada kode dua kelas terpisah, satu minggu berpisahan. Skor-skor setuju ment intra pengamat untuk pengamat adalah kegiatan mahasiswa (88 percent), konteks dan guru pelajaran interaksi. Perjanjian Inter dan intra pengamat tingkat untuk setiap kategori SOTG-PE melampaui tingkat norma 85 persen (Brewer dan Jones, 2002).
Prosedur
Pengamatan untuk studi tersebut dilakukan oleh penulis pertama, yang mengunjungi sekolah dua kali seminggu untuk satu periode delapan minggu berurut antara Maret dan Mei 2009. Sejumlah 30 kelas fisik pendidikan (50 menit dalam panjang) diamati dan dicatat. Pelajaran terpanjang dicatat pada 49 menit dan yang paling pendek 35 menit.Tujuh belas tahun dari kelas-kelas fisik pendidikan adalah video mencatat dalam aula olahraga-olahraga sekolah dari satu galeri melihat yang mengabaikan lingkungan pelajaran. Tiga kelas dicatat di luar di nada astro gambut sekolah dan sepuluh kelas dicatat di padang rumput sekolah (jengkerik ¼ 9; semacam kasti ¼ 1). Satu kamera video (Sony HDV 1080i) dengan satu lensa sudut luas ditunggangi ke atas satu kuda-kuda dan tersambung ke satu Wireless Microphone System (Sennheiser EW G2 100 ENG). Ini dimungkinkan pergerakan dan tanggapan murid-murid target serta komunikasi verbal guru untuk ditawan. Penerima masukan sistem mikrofon nirkabel melekat pada kamera video, dengan demikian mempertimbangkan rekaman serentak rekaman video dan komentar-komentar verbal (Becker dan Wrisberg, 2008).Sebelumnya setiap pelajaran empat murid dari kelas mendaftarkan memilih secara acak oleh guru kelas akan diamati. Masing-masing memilih secara acak murid memakai satu rompi berwarna yang sangat jelas, yang dikontraskan dengan seragam fisik pendidikan peraturan sekolah. Rekaman pelajaran memulai ketika murid pertama memasuki lingkungan pelajaran dan berakhir ketika guru membubarkan seluruh kelas. Murid target pertama diamati dan dicatat untuk empat menit; penulis menggunakan satu pajangan alat pengatur waktu di layar kamera dan satu berkas audio direkam sebelumnya memastikan ketepatan. Pada kesimpulan yang pertama empat menit murid target kedua ditemukan dan260 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
mengamati, ini prosedur diikuti untuk murid ketiga dan keempat dan mengulang secara berurutan sampai kelas telah disingkirkan oleh guru.
Analisa data
Data individu pada awalnya diperiksa untuk nilai-nilai hilang atau tidak masuk akal. Variabel terikat adalah kategori-kategori SOTG-PE, yang telah dijumlahkan dan dibagi dengan jumlah kelas total, menentukan persentase rata-rata waktu pelajaran dipakai dalam jenis-jenis aktivitas berbeda, hubungan-hubungan pelajaran dan interaksi-interaksi guru. Variabel-variabel bebas adalah tiga permainan itu kategori invasi, mencolok / menampilkan , dan menangkap / dinding. Tes untuk kenormalan dilakukan untuk setiap kumpulan data dengan memanfaatkan Shapiro-Wilk tes, yang mengungkapkan bahwa data aktivitas murid didistribusikan biasanya, tetapi konteks dan guru pelajaran data interaksi memperlihatkan satu sedang tidak distribusi normal. Satu satu arah antara analisis variansi kelompok-kelompok dengan tes pasca hoc dilakukan untuk mengeksplorasi beda potensial dengan masing-masing dari kegiatan murid itu variabel antara kategori-kategori permainan. Kruskal-Wallis yang Non- parametris menguji dilakukan di konteks dan guru pelajaran variabel-variabel interaksi. Susulan Mann-Whitney U menguji dilakukan untuk menentukan di mana signifikan berbeda ences terjadi. Sebagai tambahan, hubungan antara
kegiatan murid, konteks dan guru pelajaran variabel-variabel antara tindakan diperiksa menggunakan hubungan-hubungan urutan pemeringkatan Spearman. Semua analisis dilaksanakan menggunakan Statistical Package untuk Sosial Sciences v.15 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA), dan tingkat alpha ditetapkan pada p < 0.05.
Keputusan
Sejumlah 30 permainan fisik pendidikan kelas diamati, menghasilkan 1,379 menit rekaman video keseluruhan berkode menggunakan SOTG-PE. Setelah bertanggung jawab untuk waktu menyangka murid berganti seragam-seragam fisik pendidikan mereka, pelajaran terpanjang dicatat pada 49 menit dan est 35 pendek menit. Setiap guru diamati di enam kesempatan terpisah. Satu ringkasan hasil-hasil deskriptif, termasuk persentase waktu, berarti dan deviasi-deviasi standar untuk hubungan-hubungan kegiatan murid dipamerkan dalam Meja 1.Hasil-hasil deskriptif untuk konteks pelajaran tidak terdistribusi secara normal dan data interaksi guru termasuk nilai maksimum dan terendah, skor-skor rata-rata dan kisaran antara kuartil untuk kategori-kategori pertandingan lain disajikan dalam Tables 2, 3 dan 4.
Table 1. Proportion of lesson time in student activity type
SOTG-PE variable n
Student activity type (% )Inactive 30 Motor response 30 Locomotion 30 Motor/locomotion 30Motor/locomotion off-task 30
Low High
34.80 64.80 2.10 15.90
11.40 44.90 0.00 8.30
4.20 25.70
M SD
49.29 8.90 8.11 3.28
30.46 9.77 4.16 2.29
7.95 4.45
Roberts and Fairclough 261
Table 2. Proportion of class time in lesson context and teacher interactions for invasion games
SOTG-PE variable Low
Lesson context (% )Warm-up 0.00 General management 18.30 Technical practice 0.00 Applied skill practice 0.00 Modified game 0.00 Small-sided game 0.00 Full-game 0.00 Free play 0.00 Other 0.00 Teacher interactions (% )Verbal pro- tactical 4.20 Non verbal pro-tactical 0.00 Verbal pro-technical 30.56 Non verbal pro-technical 0.00None 9.00
Table 3. Proportion of class time in lesson context and teacher interactions for striking and fielding games
SOTG-PE variable Low
Lesson Context (%)Warm-up 0.00 General management 35.40 Technical practice 0.00 Applied skill practice 0.00 Modified game 0.00 Small-sided game 0.00 Full-game 0.00 Free play 0.00 Other 0.00 Teacher Interactions (%)Verbal pro- tactical 0.70 Non verbal pro-tactical 0.00 Verbal pro-technical 28.57 Non verbal pro-technical 0.0None 12.50
The results of the ANOVA with post-hoc tests revealed no significant difference in the percentage of time the pupils were engaged in the various pupil activity codes across the three games cate-gories. The highest proportion of lesson time was recorded in the inactive category. The highest recorded percentage of lesson time spent inactive was 52.8 percent in the striking and fielding category. The percentage of lesson time which recorded the highest activity level was
262 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
Table 4. Proportion of class time in lesson context and teacher interactions for net/wall games
SOTG-PE variable Low
Lesson Context (%)Warm-up 0.00 General management 18.30 Technical practice 0.00 Applied skill practice 0.00 Modified game 0.00 Small-sided game 0.00 Full-game 0.00 Free play 0.00 Other 0.00 Teacher Interactions (%)Verbal pro- tactical 5.10 Non verbal pro-tactical 0.00 Verbal pro-technical 27.62 Non verbal pro-technical 0.08None 14.20
pergerakan. Ini dicatat dalam kategori permainan invasi. Satu daftar lengkap hasil dari ANOVA dirangkum dalam Meja 5.
Konteks pelajaran
Proporsi tercatat terbesar waktu pelajaran dicatat dalam kategori manajemen (47.4 percent) umum. Dalam kategori-kategori praktik praktik teknis dan menerapkan keahlian mempraktikkan tertinggi tercatat waktu adalah 11.4 persen dan 9.8 persen, masing-masing. Untuk pertandingan-pertandingan spesifik kategori satutinggi 74.2 persen dicatat untuk pertandingan penuh dan satu rendah 0.0 persen untuk permainan dimodifikasi. Pada saat tiga kategori permainan itu , ada perbedaan-perbedaan penting dalam masa dipakai dalam menghangatkan (w2 (2) 12.0, p ¼ .002), manajemen umum (w2 (2) 8.18, p ¼ .01), praktik teknis 4.81, p ¼
.01), menerapkan praktik keahlian 8.33, p ¼ .001) dan memodifikasi permainan 4.80, p ¼ .001).
Masa diperuntukkan untuk menghangatkan (7.64 percent) dan manajemen umum (47.4 percent) secara signifikan lebih besar dalam mencolok dan menampilkan kelas daripada menangkap / dinding (1.07 persen dan 33.6 persen, masing-masing, p < .005) dan pertandingan-pertandingan invasi (3.93 persen dan 44.5 persen masing-masing, p < .005), namun demikian murid menghabiskan lebih banyak waktu dalam pertandingan-pertandingan dimodifikasi konteks pada saat pertandingan-pertandingan invasi kelas
Roberts and Fairclough 263
(5.17 persen) daripada mencolok dan menampilkan dan menangkap / dinding. Ada satu persentase secara signifikan lebih tinggi waktu pelajaran mempersembahkan kepada praktik teknis bersih / pertandingan-pertandingan dinding daripada pertandingan-pertandingan invasi dan mencolok dan menampilkan. Bagian terbesar waktu pelajaran mempersembahkan kepada praktik keahlian terapan adalah jaring / dinding, yang secara signifikan lebih tinggi daripada pertandingan-pertandingan invasi dan mencolok dan menampilkan. Secara signifikan lebih banyak waktu dihabiskan dalam pertandingan-pertandingan dimodifikasi dalam pertandingan-pertandingan invasi daripada menangkap / pertandingan-pertandingan dinding. Kategori pertandingan penuh mencatat satu tinggi dalam pertandingan-pertandingan invasi untuk satu rendah dalam mencolok / menampilkan permainan; namun demikian perbedaan-perbedaan ini tidak signifikan.
Interaksi-interaksi guru
Tertinggi tercatat interaksi-interaksi guru seberang tiga permainan itu kategori adalah perilaku teknis yang secara lisan pro moting. Waktu menghabiskan secara lisan mempromosikan perilaku taktis adalah 16.7 persen waktu pelajaran. Non- secara lisan mempromosikan perilaku teknis adalah jelas pada saat 3.0 persen waktu pelajaran dan tidak secara lisan mempromosikan perilaku taktis dicatat pada 0.9 persen waktu pelajaran. Mempromosikan bukan teknis maupun perilaku taktis dicatat pada 37.3 persenseberang kategori-kategori aneka permainan. Interaksi-interaksi guru juga berlainan sekali antara pertandingan-pertandingan var-ious kategori berhubungan dengan mempromosikan perilaku teknis verbal ¼8.18, P < .005), dan mempromosikan perilaku taktis verbal ¼ 7.41, P < .005). Susulan analisis mengungkapkan
guru menghabiskan secara signifikan lebih banyak waktu secara lisan mempromosikan perilaku taktis dalam pertandingan-pertandingan invasi kelas, daripada menangkap / dinding (13.1 persen, P < .001) dan mencolok dan menampilkan permainan (12.0 persen, P < .005). Guru juga menghabiskan secara signifikan lebih banyak waktu mempromosikan beha-viour teknis pada saat pertandingan-pertandingan invasi daripada menangkap / pertandingan-pertandingan dinding (38.6 persen, P < .005).
Kegiatan murid, konteks dan guru pelajaran hubungan-hubungan interaksi
Hubungan-hubungan urutan pemeringkatan Spearman mengungkapkan satu hubungan positif signifikan antara ketidakaktifan dan manajemen umum murid (r ¼ 0.62, P < 0.01). Terdapat juga hubungan-hubungan negatif signifikan antara ketidakaktifan dan pergerakan murid (r ¼ 0.-78, P < 0.05), respon motor (r ¼ 0.-60, P < 0.05), dan pertandingan penuh (r ¼ 0.-49, P < 0.05). Satu hubungan positif signifikan didapati antara respon motor dan menerapkan praktik keahlian (r ¼ 0.52, P < 0.02). Terdapat juga satu hubungan positif signif-icant antara praktik dan motor teknis / pergerakan (r ¼ 0.41, P < 0.02) dan secara lisan mempromosikan perilaku teknis (r ¼ 0.49, P < 0.05). Satu hubungan terbalik signifikan diamati antara secara lisan mempromosikan perilaku taktis dan praktik teknis (r ¼ 0.-48, P < 0.05), namun demikian satu hubungan positif signifikan didapati antara secara lisan mempromosikan perilaku taktis dan memodifikasi permainan (r ¼ 0.46, P < 0.01).
Diskusi
Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk menguji kegiatan murid, hubungan-hubungan pelajaran dan guru interac-tions pada saat pertandingan-pertandingan fisik pendidikan kelas menggunakan satu instrumen observasi sistematis spesifik.
Konteks aktivitas murid
Murid dalam belajar kami diamati tidak aktif untuk satu proporsi tinggi waktu pelajaran dan ini konsisten seberang
264 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
diaktifkan dari murid sedang duduk, menunggu, atau berdiri dan tidak terlibat dalam apa pun motor spesifik atau isi lokomotif. Tingkat-tingkat yang tinggi ini ketidakaktifan secara positif diasosiasikan dengan kategori manajemen umum yang mencakup guru memberikan instruksi dan penjelasan. Tingkat-tingkat yang tinggi dilaporkan ketidakaktifan adalah serupa dengan itu dilaporkan dalam satu studi kegiatan fisik baru-baru ini menggunakan System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT) (Dll makanan., 2008). Pada studi sekarang ada satu hubungan negatif kuat antara tingkat ketidakaktifan dan ketika murid terlibat dalam bermain satu pertandingan penuh. Hubungan ini boleh dijelaskan oleh organisasi tim pada saat permainan pertandingan penuh. Sebagai contoh, dua tim akan terlibat dalam membentuk per sementara tim-tim tersisa adalah tidak aktif sebagai pengamat. Permainan satu pertandingan penuh adalah sebuah strategi diadopsi oleh guru yang mengajarkan murid-murid lebih tua, khususnya, murid dalam pentas yang belakangan pendidikan lanjutan (berusia 15–16 tahun). Format untuk kelas-kelas ini normalnya melibatkan satu pemanasan seluruh kelas diikuti oleh satu pertandingan penuh. Dalam tahap awal pendidikan lanjutan (berusia 11–14 tahun) murid terlibat dalam lebih teknis dan keahlian mendasarkan praktik. Temuan-temuan ini konsisten antara masing-masing dari guru mengamati. Tingkat-tingkat ketidakaktifan tercatat kami 52.8 persen, 45.3 persen dan 48.6 persen adalah lebih rendah daripada 64 persen yang dilaporkan dalam studi bola basket ALT-PE (Cousineau and Luke, 1990). Namun demikian, tingkat-tingkat ini ketidakaktifan sebanding dengan hasil dari satu studi belakangan ini memeriksa tingkat-tingkat kegiatan fisik dalam National Inggris telah diperbaiki Curricu-lum Physical Pendidikan (QCA, 2007a; Mersh and Fairclough, 2010). Ini kajian tertentu melaporkan ketidakaktifan tinggi tingkat antara anak lelaki dan gadis-gadis, ini adalah attrib-uted untuk tingkat-tingkat yang tinggi instruksi dan manajemen guru konteks. Perubahan-perubahan baru-baru ini kepada NCPE Inggris includethe adoptionofsix tema-tema puas; thestudyabovereportedonthreeof tema-tema ini 'Mengakali Lawan' (2) 'Accurate Replication' dan (3) 'Berlatih Aman dan Secara Efektif'. Revisi-revisi ini kepada NCPE Inggris melibatkan murid dalam pengambilan keputusan yang lebih kognitif serta guru memberikan kesempatan untuk murid memerhatikan satu sama lain dan membuat keputusan-keputusan sederhana tentang kinerja. Dalam studi yang sekarang persentase tertinggi kegiatan (yaitu pergerakan / pergerakan motor) dicatat dalam kategori permainan invasi (yaitu bola tangan Eur-opean, hoki bola basket dan lapangan). Ini temuan konsisten dengan pelajaran-pelajaran sebelumnya kegiatan fisik laporan ing pada saat kelas-kelas permainan (Fairclough dan Stratton, 2005).
Konteks pelajaran
Persentase-persentase konteks pelajaran seberang tiga permainan itu kategori mengungkapkan bahwa mayoritas waktu pelajaran berbakti kepada manajemen umum (42.98 percent) dan satu pertandingan penuh. Persentase waktu belajar dicatat dalam kategori manajemen umum konsisten dengan fisik pendidikan pra vious studi (Dll makanan., 2008) namun demikian; persentase pertandingan penuh lebih besar dari satu kombinasi praktik teknis dan menerapkan kategori-kategori praktik keahlian. Proporsi waktu dialokasikan untuk teknis dan menerapkan praktik keahlian lebih kecil dari praktik keahlian mencatat menggunakan SOFIT dalam satu baru-baru ini kegiatan fisik
Roberts and Fairclough 265
dan pada dasarnya bertanya pertanyaan 'apa berlaku di sini'? Bukti dari data kami menyarankan guru mengabdi lebih banyak waktu belajar untuk teknis dan keahlian diterapkan mendasarkan praktik , dan pertandingan-pertandingan bersegi penuh daripada memodifikasi permainan.Persentase secara relatif rendah waktu belajar berbakti kepada pertandingan-pertandingan dimodifikasi adalah sebuah kejutan, sebagai guru dalam studi ini menunjukkan (lewat satu korespondensi pribadi) pentingnya pengambilan keputusan dalam permainan dan mempunyai pengetahuan dan mengerti untuk menerapkan prinsip-prinsip TGfU terpilih. Ia telah disarankan bahwa memikirkan dan mengajar pertandingan-pertandingan dimodifikasi bisa jadi masalah untuk guru fisik pendidikan (Light, 2002; Rovegno, 1988). Sebagai tambahan, ia telah dilaporkan guru lebih menyukai keselamatan keahlian dan mengebor praktik dan segan menggunakan murid-murid mereka dalam ketidakstabilan dimodifikasi dan mengondisikan permainan (Williams dan Hodges, 2005). Studi-studi ilmiah baru-baru ini telah mendukung penggunaan lebih luas bersegi kecil dan memodifikasi permainan dalam mengembangkan meliputi persepsi, kognitif dan keahlian motor (Menyeberang dll., 2010). Bukti dari ini sampel kecil harus dengan jelas dilihat dengan beberapa berhati-hati, namun demikian, pelajaran-pelajaran lebih lanjut ke penerimaan luas pertandingan-pertandingan dimodifikasi dan dampak pedagogi TGM di guru fisik pendidikan mungkin wajar investigasi lebih lanjut.
Interaksi-interaksi guru
Secara lisan mempromosikan perilaku teknis adalah interaksi pengajaran tercatat terbesar itu seberang tiga permainan itu kategori. Pentingnya instruksi dan umpan balik serentak dalam pembelajaran, pengajaran dan penilaian murid telah dilaporkan dulu. Promosi perilaku teknis menurut perbandingan lebih tinggi di kedua teknis dan keahlian dikaitkan praktik serta bersegi kecil dan pertandingan penuh. Lebih-lebih lagi SOTG-PE mencatat
satu positif berarti kapal hubungan antara praktik dan motor teknis / pergerakan dan secara lisan mempromosikan beha-viour teknis. Ia adalah jelas yang guru dalam belajar kami lebih nyaman dengan pro pendekatan teknis mengajar fisik pendidikan ketika ada bukti kecil menyokong penggunaan pendekatan-pendekatan pedagogis pro taktis.Disebabkan oleh desain yang kuantitatif belajar kami dan perekrutan peserta dari sekolah kelamin tunggal, belajar kami berisi sejumlah keterbatasan. Pertama, data kuantitatif memberikan tidak ada wawasan ke pengajaran personal filosofi guru direkrut kepada studi ini. Oleh karena itu, ia tidak mungkin memastikan mengapa guru terlibat dalam pendekatan-pendekatan bersifat pelajaran spesifik. Apa pun investigasi-investigasi lebih lanjut ke pendekatan-pendekatan pedagogis diadopsi oleh guru-guru dalam pengajaran permainan harus mempertimbangkan menyisir kedua-dua metodologi kwantitatip dan kualitatif. Akhirnya, ini bisa memberikan beberapa wawasan mengenai mengapa guru mengadopsi tertentu strategi-strategi pedagogis. Kedua, yang par ticipants dalam studi ini terbatas ke sekolah satu anak lelaki , dan karena itu rekomendasi untuk studi lebih lanjut adalah untuk termasuk satu kisaran sekolah dan kelamin. Ketiga, studi ini tidak mengamati apa pun permainan dari kategori pertandingan-pertandingan target itu. Ini kelalaian adalah disebabkan berlawanan masalah mengenai ketidakhadiran staf dan perubahan kepada jadwal perjalanan sekolah yang formal.
Kesimpulan
Tujuan kajian ini adalah untuk menguji tingkat aktivitas murid, konteks dan guru pelajaran antara tindakan dari tiga pertandingan lain kategori menggunakan satu instrumen observasi sistematis spesifik. Terdapat murid
266 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
pro pendekatan teknis dan ada bukti kecil menyokong penggunaan satu pedagogi pro taktis. Sementara kelayakan, keterandalan dan kebenaran SOTG-PE dalam hubungan-hubungan tambahan, seperti gadis dan fisik pendidikan pendidikan bersama, memerlukan penilaian yang lebih lanjut, studi ini telah menunjukkan bahwa SOTG-PE mungkin adalah satu alat yang berguna dalam mengevaluasi dan merekam pengajaran permainan dalam satu lingkungan fisik pendidikan.
Penghargaan
Penulis ingin berterima kasih guru dan anak yang terlibat dalam studi ini.
References
Alexander K, Penney D (2005) Teaching under the influence: Feeding Games for Understanding into the Sport Education development refinement cycle. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(3): 287–301.
Allison S, Thorpe R (1997) A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skill approach versus a game for understanding approach. British Journal of Phys-ical Education: Autumn.
Becker AJ, Wrisberg CA (2008) Effective coaching in action: Observations of legendary collegiate basketball coach, Pat Summitt. The Sport Psychologist 22(2): 197–211.
Brewer JC, Jones LR (2002) A five-stage process for establishing contextually valid systematic observation instruments: The case of rugby union. The Sport Psychologist 16(2): 138–159.
Brooker R, Kirk D, Braiuka S, and Bransgrove A (2000) Implementing a game sense approach to teaching junior high school basketball in a naturalistic setting. European Physical Education Review 6(1): 7–26.
Bunker D, Thorpe R (1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education 18(1): 5–8.
Butler IJ (2006) Curriculum constructions of ability: Enhancing learning through Teaching Games for Under-standing (TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport, Education and Society 11(3): 243–258.
Butler IJ (2005) TGfU pet-agogy: Old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(3): 225–240.
Chow BC, McKenzie TL, and Louie L (2008) Children’s physical activity and environmental influences dur-ing elementary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27(1): 38–50.
Cobb P, Yackel E (1996)Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of develop-mental research. Educational Psychologist 31(3–4):175–190.
Cousineau WJ, Luke MD (1990) Relationship between teacher expectations and academic learning time in sixth grade physical education lessons. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 9(4): 262–271.
Evans J, Clarke C (1988) Changing the face of physical education. In: Evans J (ed.) Teachers, teaching and control. London: Falmer.
Fairclough SJ, Stratton G, and Baldwin G (2002) The contribution of secondary school physical education to lifetime physical activity. European Physical Education Review 8(1): 69–84.
Fairclough SJ, Stratton G (2005) Physical activity levels in middle and high school physical education: A review. Pediatric Exercise Science 17(3): 17–220.
Fairclough SJ, Mersh R (2010) Physical activity, lesson context, and teaching behaviours within the revised English National Curriculum for Physical Education: A case study of one school. European Physical Edu-cation Review 16(1): 29–45.
Ford PR, Yates I, and Williams M (2010) An analysis of practice activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: Exploring the link between science and application. Journal of Sports Sciences 28(5): 483–495.
Fosnot CT (1996) Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
French KE, Thomas JR (1987) The relation of knowledge development to children’s basketball performance.Journal of Sport Psychology 9(1): 15–32.
Roberts and Fairclough 267
Garc´ıa Lo´pez LM, Contreas Jorda´n OR, Penney D, and Chandler T (2009) The role transfer in games teaching: Implications for the development of the sports curriculum. European Physical Education Review 15(1): 47–63.
Gordon M (2009) Toward a pragmatic discourse of constructivism: Reflections on lessons from practice, Educational Studies, 45: 39–58.
Gower C, Capel S (2004) Newly qualified physical education teachers’ experiences of developing subject knowledge prior to, during and after a Postgraduate Certificate in Education course. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 9(2): 165–183.
Gre´haigne JF, Richard JF, and Griffin LL (2005) Teaching and Learning Team Sports and Games. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Griffin L, Oslin JL, and Mitchell SA (1995) An analysis of two instructional approaches to teaching net games. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 66: A–64.
Hastie PA (1994) Selected teacher behaviours and pupil ALT-PE in secondary school physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 13(3): 242–259.
Holt EJ, Ward P, and Wallhead TL (2006) The transfer of learning from play practices to game play in young adult soccer players. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 11(2): 101–118.
Holt NL, Strean WB, and Bengoechea EG (2002) Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: new avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2): 162–176.
Kirk D, MacPhail A (2002) Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2): 177–192.
Laws C (1994) Rhetorical justification for new approaches to teaching games: are teachers deluding them-selves? Proceedings of the 10th Commonwealth and Scientific Congress, University of Victoria, Canada.
Lee MA, Ward P (2009) Generalization of tactics in tag rugby from practice to games in middle school phys-ical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14(2): 189–207.
Light R (2002). The social nature of games: Pre-service primary teachers’ first experiences of TGfU, European Physical Education Review. 8(3): 291–310.
Light R (2004) Coaches’ experiences of Game Sense: Opportunities and challenges. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 9(2): 115–131.
Light R, Fawns R (2003) Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action through TGfU. Quest 55(2): 161–176. Light R, Wallian N (2008) A constructivist-informed approach to teaching swimming. Quest 60(3): 387–404. Magill RA (1990) Motor Learning is meaningful for physical educators, Quest, 42(2): 126–133.McNeill MC, Fry JM, Wright SC, Tan CWK, and Rossi T (2008) Structuring time and questioning to achieve
tactical awareness in games lessons. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 13(3): 231–249.Mersh R Fairclough SJ (2010) Physical activity, lesson context, and teaching behaviours within the revised
English National Curriculum for Physical Education: A case study of one school. European Physical Education Review 16(1): 29–45.
Metzler MW (1989) A review of research on time in sport pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical Edu-cation 8(2): 87–103.
Metzler MW (2005) Instructional Models for Physical Education. Michigan: Holcomb Hathaway Publishers, Inc.
Mitchell SA, Griffin LL, and Oslin JL (1995) The effects of two instructional approaches on game perfor-mance. Pedagogy in Practice: Teaching and Coaching in Physical Education and Sports 1(1): 36–48.
QCA (2007a) Physical Education Programme of Study: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. URL: www.curriculum.qca.org.
QCA (2007b) Physical Education: Programme of Study for Key Stage 3 and Attainment Target. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Oslin J, Mitchell S (2006) Game-centred approaches to teaching physical education. In Kirk D, Macdonald D, and O’Sullivan M (ed.) The Handbook of Physical Education. Sage Publications: London, 627–651.
Phillips DC (1995) The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. EducationalResearcher 24(7): 5–12.
268 European Physical Education Review 17(2)
Rink JE (1996) Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 15(4): 397–398.
Roberts SJ (2011) Teaching games for understanding: The difficulties and challenges experienced by partic-ipation cricket coaches. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 16(1): 33–48.
Roberts SJ, Fairclough SJ (in press) A five-stage process for the development and validation of a systematic observation instrument: The System for Observing the Teaching of Games in Physical Education (SOTG-PE). European Journal of Physical Education.
Rovegno I (1998) The development of in-service teachers’ knowledge of a constructivist approach to physical education: Teaching beyond activities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69(2): 147–62.
Rovegno I, Bandhauer D (1997) Norms of the school culture that facilitated teacher adoption and learning of a constructivist approach to physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 16(4): 401–25.
Siedentop D, Tousignant M, and Parker M (1982) Academic learning time – Physical education, 1982 revi-sion coding manual. Unpublished manuscript.
Siedentop D, Tannehill D (2000) Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education, fourth edition. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Silverman S (1991) Research on teaching in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 62(4): 352–364.
Sweeting T, Rink JE (1999) Effects of direct instruction and environmentally designed instruction on the pro-cess and product characteristics of a fundamental skill. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 18(2): 216–233.
Tallir IB, Musch E, Valcke M, and Lenoir M (2005) Effects of two instructional approaches for basketball on decision-making and recognition ability. International Journal of Sport Psychology 36(2): 107–126.
Tinning R (2006) Theoretical orientations in physical education. In: Kirk D, Macdonald D, and O’Sullivan M (ed.), The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publications, 369–385.
Turner AP, Martinek TJ (1999) An investigation into teaching games for understanding: Effects on skill, knowledge and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70(3): 286–296.
Wallian N, Chang C-W (2006) Development and learning of motor skill competencies. In: Kirk D, Macdonald D, and O’Sullivan M (ed.), The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publications, 292–311.
Williams MA, Hodges NJ (2005) Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: Challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences 23(6): 637–650.
Windschitl M (2002) Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual pedagogical, cultural and political challenges facing teachers, Review of Educational Research, 72: 131–175.
Wright J, Forrest G (2007) A social semiotic analysis of knowledge construction and games centred approaches to teaching. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 12(3): 273–288.
Wright S, McNeill M, Fry J, and Wang J (2005) Teaching teachers to play and teach games. Physical Edu-cation and Sports Pedagogy 10(1): 61–82.
Biographical details
Simon Roberts is the Programme Leader for Sports Coaching and a Senior Lecturer in Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy at Liverpool John Moores University.
Stuart Fairclough is a Reader in Physical Activity Education at Liverpool John Moores University.
