Linking teaching games for understanding and quality teaching in NSW secondary schools

A discussion paper entitled Quality teaching in NSW public schools (Department of Education and Training, 2003) has been developed to improve teaching practice and hence student learning outcomes. The model of pedagogy outlined in this document focuses on the three dimensions of intellectual quality, quality learning environment and significance. Elements associated with these dimensions such as deep understanding, higher order thinking, student direction and inclusivity can be difficult for teachers to implement into practical lessons. When effectively implemented TGfU is one strategy that allows teachers to address these elements when teaching games in physical education and sport. TGfU places an emphasis on the play, where tactical and strategic problems are posed in a modified game environment, ultimately drawing upon students to make decisions. Research indicates the strengths of TGfU and the desirability of it as one of the major approaches to enhance quality teaching of games. A survey was conducted with 50 Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) teachers that participated in workshops that linked TGfU and quality teaching. From the data collected, a matrix showing the relationship between TGfU and quality teaching was developed. Whilst TGfU is not the only pedagogical model for teaching games, it is most certainly one that can be used effectively to achieve student outcomes by addressing the intellectual quality, quality learning environment and significance dimensions of the Quality Teaching model. INTRODUCTION TO TGfU Research and observation of games teaching in physical education typically shows a series of highly structured lessons based heavily on the teaching of technique (Ho, 2003; Light, 2003a; Turner, 1996; Pearson & Webb, 2005). This format generally divides the lesson into an introductory activity, a skill phase and finishes with a game. This traditional model has consistently revealed a large percentage of children achieving little or no success due to the emphasis on performance, skilful players who possess inflexible techniques and poor decision-making capabilities, players who are dependent on the teacher/coach to make their decisions, and a majority of children who leave school knowing little about games (Werner, Thorpe & Bunker, 1996). The transition from technique learning to game play is difficult for children without an understanding of how and when to use their skills (Turner, 1996). Teaching games for understanding (TGfU) provides students with a more substantive base and clearer frame of reference for learning about critical elements of game play. The TGfU approach to teaching games places the focus of a lesson on the student in a game situation where cognitive skills such as ‘tactics, decision-making and problem solving are critical... with isolated technique development utilised only when the student recognises the need for it’ (Webb & Thompson, 1998, p.1). Other terminology and variations of TGfU (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982) include: ‘Play Practice’ (Launder, 2001), the ‘Games Concept Approach’ (Wright, Fry, McNeill, Tan, Tan & Schemp, 2001, cited in Light, 2003a) and more recently, ‘Playing for life’ (ASC, 2005). Modifying and adapting games is also an important part of using the Game Sense approach. The concept of ‘modification for exaggeration’ is used to emphasis particular tactical aspects. Using the game of hockey as an example, it is important that the student first has an understanding the game, that the ball must be moved down field, with the intention of scoring a goal. An appreciation of the game might include a grasp of the concept of moving down the field individually or as a team whilst thwarting the opponent’s attempts to take control. One of many examples of tactics is passing to players on the wing to run the ball up field. Whether to have a shot at goals, or whether to pass to a player in a better position is where the skill of decision-making is required. Finally skill execution and performance is required to perform a flick shot to score in the top corner of the goals. Teaching games for understanding is an approach to teaching that makes very effective use of active learning in that the students are learning though playing the games. In addition to this, ‘questioning is a powerful method of encouraging players to analyse their actions, both individually, and as a team’ (Goodman, 2001 p.7). Questions will generally relate to a particular tactical aspect. Effective phrasing of questions can also help to guide the player to an answer, in the event that they are struggling with an activity. Age, experience and ability level of the players will affect the complexity of the questions used (Goodman, 2001). Given the decreased involvement of children in physical activity, TGfU is aimed at encouraging children to become more tactically aware and to make better decisions during the game. As well, it encourages children to begin thinking strategically about game concepts whilst developing skills within a realistic context and most importantly, having fun. Essentially by focusing on the game (not necessarily the ‘full’ game), players are encouraged to develop a greater understanding of the game being played. Thomas (1997b) states that the desired effect of this is ‘players/students who are more tactically aware and are able to make better decisions during the game, thereby adding to their enjoyment of playing the game’ (p.3). She also gives an account of workshops where participants were asked to identify what they perceived as the strengths of TGfU, with the following five major themes emerging. TGfU was found to:  Encourage a holistic approach to the teaching of games  Promote enjoyment for participants  Promote player centred learning  Cater for varying abilities  Foster efficiency in aspects of implementation TGfU has been shown to result in improved learning outcomes for students. Games are a significant component of the physical education curriculum, with research suggesting that ‘65 per cent or more of the time spent in physical education is allotted to games’ (Werner et al, 1996, p.28). Key outcomes of successful physical education are students that have the ability to make successful decisions on the field and have an awareness of both technical and tactical aspects of the game (Martin & Gaskin, 2004). QUALITY TEACHING MODEL FOR NSW PUBLIC SCHOOLS A discussion paper Quality teaching in NSW public schools (NSW Department of Education and Training, 2003) proposes a model of pedagogy that contains three dimensions for quality teaching and learning. The model was developed by Dr James Ladwig and Professor Jennifer Gore from the University of Newcastle in consultation with and on behalf of the NSW DET. It is based on current research of authentic pedagogy (Newmann et al, 1996) and productive pedagogies (QSRLS, 2001). The three dimensions of the model are: 1. Intellectual quality refers to pedagogy focused on producing deep understanding of important, substantive concepts, skills and ideas. Such pedagogy treats knowledge as something that requires active construction and requires students to engage in higher-order thinking and to communicate substantively about what they are learning. Research has demonstrated that pedagogy focusing on high levels of intellectual quality benefits students, whether they are high or low achievers, from backgrounds typically identified as educationally disadvantaged or gifted and talented, or students identified with special needs. 2. Quality learning environment refers to pedagogy that creates classrooms where students and teachers work productively in an environment clearly focused on learning. Such pedagogy sets high and explicit expectations and develops positive relationships between teachers and students among students. Research into effective teaching, authentic and productive pedagogy, teachers’ expectations, students’ time-on task and student engagement has consistently demonstrated that classrooms in which there is a strong, positive and supportive environment produce improved student outcomes. 3. Significance refers to pedagogy that helps make learning meaningful and important to students. Such pedagogy draws clear connections with students’ prior knowledge and identities, with contexts outside the classroom, and with multiple ways of knowing or cultural perspectives. That is, pedagogy that promotes intellectual quality and produces a quality learning environment also requires some means by which teachers link the work of their students to personal, social and cultural contexts. (NSW DET, 2003, p.9) While intellectual quality is central, all three dimensions are essential for improved student outcomes. Each of the three dimensions of pedagogy can be described in terms of a number of elements. These elements draw from research that links quality pedagogy to improved student outcomes. Elements are observable characteristics of pedagogy. These are summarised in Table 1 below: Intellectual Quality Quality learning environment Significance Deep knowledge Explicit quality criteria Background knowledge Deep understanding Engagement Cultural knowledge Problematic knowledge High expectations Knowledge integration Higher-order thinking Social support Inclusivity Metalanguage Students’ self-regulation Connectedness Substantive communication Student direction Narrative Table 1. The dimensions and elements of the NSW model of pedagogy (NSW DET, 2003, p.9) In working with the model there are four key questions: 1. What do we want students to learn? 2. Why does this learning matter? 3. What do we want the students to do? 4. How well do we expect them to do it? Obviously, the focus of the model is to increase the quality of education and the best way to do this is through pedagogy, which has been shown to have most influence on quality of learning (NSW DET, 2003). The model is designed to promote improved student lear