Implementing a tactical approach through action research

This article was downloaded by: [Tulane University]On: 23 August 2013, At: 16:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Physical Education and Sport PedagogyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20

Implementing a tactical approachthrough action researchKlara Gubacs-Collins aa Montclair State University, USAPublished online: 16 May 2007.

To cite this article: Klara Gubacs-Collins (2007) Implementing a tactical approach through actionresearch, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 12:2, 105-126, DOI: 10.1080/17408980701281987

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408980701281987

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17408980701281987

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17408980701281987

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

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

Implementing a tactical approach

through action research

Klara Gubacs-Collins�

Montclair State University, USA

Background: Influenced by the original observations of Bunker and Thorpe, physical education

theorists began to question the effectiveness of a traditional model for teaching games and have

increasingly begun to believe that concentrating only on specific motor responses (techniques)

fails to take into account the contextual nature of games. Games knowledge refers not only to the

ability to execute complex motor skills but also to decisions concerning the appropriate use of the

skill within the context of the game situation. Thus advances in sport pedagogy have resulted in a

dialogue between whether skill/technique development or strategy/tactical skill development is

more important in learning how to play a game or sport. Rather than deepen an either/ordichotomy, Griffin et al. introduced an approach that accentuates the connection between

technique and tactics. The more the author of this paper analyzed the potential benefits of a

tactical approach relative to problems inherent to the traditional approach, the more apparent it

became that changes were necessary in her teaching strategy.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to introduce the methods, selected findings and a discussion of

an action research on implementing a tactical approach to teaching tennis in a pre-service teacher

education setting. The major purpose of this study was to investigate physical education majors’

and their teacher educator’s perceptions regarding the implementation of a tactical games

approach in an eight-week tennis class.

Participants and setting: The main participant of this investigation was a physical education teacher

education (PETE) practitioner who studied her own practice. There were also the student

participants of this study who were 18 pre-service PETE majors, 10 females and eight males

ranging from freshman to senior. Pseudonyms were used to protect the participants’ identity. The

study was conducted during an eight-week tennis course that met twice a week for 90 minutes.

Research design: The research design used for this study was a self-reflective inquiry conducted by the

teacher educator considered as action research, a process in which teachers systematically and

critically reflect on their work and make changes in their practice as a result of their reflection.

Teachers are actively involved in their own educational process. The ‘products’ of action research

generally include the generation of knowledge about teaching and learning, increased

understanding of practice, and improvements in teaching and learning. This research fully

describes the first action research cycle of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting on the

implementation of a non-traditional teaching approach.

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 105–126

�Department of Exercise Science and Physical Education, 1 Normal Avenue, Montclair State

University, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, USA. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1740-8989 (print); ISSN 1742-5786 (online)/07/020105–22# 2007 Association for Physical EducationDOI: 10.1080/17408980701281987

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Data collection: Action research was used to investigate the process. Data collection techniques

included: teacher educator’s self-reflection, pre-service teachers’ reflections, student interviews

and videotaped observations. Self-reflections were collected after all classes. Each entry of the

journal was accompanied by the date of the class or event and contextual information, such as

time, location, participants, focus of observation or reflection. The immediate reflections were

audio-taped at the conclusion of each class and then transcribed. In addition, every class was also

videotaped to aid the reflection process. Students were also asked seven times during the

semester to reflect on their learning experience at the conclusion of the class. Finally, all student

interviews were conducted at the conclusion of the eight-week class.

Data analysis: The data were analyzed using the inductive method for the reflective journals and

constant comparison for the interviews. The videotapes were viewed to observe commonalities

and differences between reported findings from participants and actual events that had taken

place during class time.

Findings: The teacher educator’s experience indicated that a tactical approach resulted in an

increased content knowledge, which was essential in the development of the question/answer(Q/A) session of a tactical lesson. Learning to use the Q&A session occurred in a three-step

learning continuum: imitation, rephrase, and dual-directional conversation. The increased

understanding of the approach resulted in a shift in her beliefs about teaching. The participants

indicated that the experience was meaningful because of combining skill development and

tactical knowledge in the game context while in a fun environment. The participants emphasized

the importance of the Q&A session and suggested that the questions challenged them cognitively

and provided feedback about their performance.

Conclusions: Participants experienced frustration during the initial stages of the study. Nonetheless,

pre-service teachers reported that a tactical approach improved their tactical knowledge and

increased interest and excitement for both teacher and students. The struggle between long-

standing habits of traditional thought and practice and the different thinking and practices

required by a tactical approach was difficult but attainable for all participants.

Keywords: Tactical approach to teaching games; Teaching games for understanding; Action

research; Teacher education; Content knowledge

Introduction

A major change occurred in the content of physical education training when the cur-

riculum in physical education shifted from an emphasis on gymnastics and exercise to

an approach emphasizing sports and games (Swanson & Spears, 1995). As games

became an increasingly larger part of physical education programs in the United

States the prototypical training model consisted of first providing explanation or dem-

onstration, followed by skill practice and culminating in game play. This remains the

dominant model for instruction to this day. For the purpose of this paper I will refer to

this model as the traditional approach to teaching physical education.

Influenced by the original observations of Bunker and Thorpe (1986) an increasing

number of physical education theorists began to question the effectiveness of this

model and now believe that traditional teaching methods concentrating on specific

motor responses (techniques) fail to take into account the contextual nature of

games. Games knowledge refers not only to the ability to execute complex motor

skills but also to decisions concerning the appropriate use of the skill within the

context of the game situation (McPherson & French, 1991). If a soccer player

106 K. Gubacs-Collins

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

demonstrates ‘ideal form’ in dribbling the ball but cannot react effectively to team-

mates and opposition during a game, the goal of the game will not be achieved. To

become skilled in playing a game the performer must develop the ability to monitor

and evaluate the game situation, identify response options, and then select the most

appropriate response for a particular situation (McPherson & French, 1991).

Advances in sport pedagogy have resulted in the present dialogue concerning

varying methods of games teaching, specifically the Teaching Games for Understand-

ing (TGfU) approach which has been the focus of discussion (Mitchell et al., 1995;

Werner et al., 1996; Hopper & Bell, 2000; Mandigo & Holt, 2000; Rink, 2000).

Since the introduction of the TGfU model by Thorpe and Bunker (1983) the

model has benefited from growing research attention due to its potential to: (a)

assess the tactical transfer across games (Oslin et al., 1998); (b) design ways to

assess game performance (Grehaigne et al., 1997; Oslin et al., 1998); (c) facilitate

the development of technical skills (Lawton, 1989); and (d) promote the development

of tactical knowledge (Mitchell et al., 1995; Butler, 1997; Grehaigne et al., 1999;

Rovegno et al., 2001). Other studies contributed to the dialogue by investigating tea-

chers’ perceptions of the TGfU approach (Berkowitz, 1996; Turner, 1996).

Dialogue among physical education researchers focused on whether skill/techniquedevelopment or strategy/tactical skill development ismore important in learning how to

play a game or sport. During the summer of 1996, the Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education published an entire monograph discussing tactical and skill approaches to

teaching sports and games from a research perspective (French, Werner, Rink et al.,

1996; French, Werner, Taylor et al., 1996; Graham et al., 1996; Rink, 1996; Rink,

French & Tjeerdsma, 1996; Rink, French & Graham, 1996; Tjeerdsma et al., 1996).

A major finding that echoed through these studies was that students taught using

the TGfU approach performed better on tests of tactical knowledge and perceived

the TGfU approach to be more enjoyable then a traditional approach. Rink (1996),

however, indicated that the studies conducted could not offer conclusive evidence to

support TGfU over techniques-based instruction.

While there seems to be no conclusive evidence as to which approach is better,

maybe the area of perceived enjoyment and the role of motivation should also be dis-

cussed. Consequently, researchers began to look into enhancing the original TGfU

model to make it more consistent with research developments. Of significance here

was the inclusion of ‘affective’ elements within the TGfU model (Kirk et al., 2000;

Holt et al., 2002; Kirk & McPhail, 2002). Perhaps the most significant addition to

the model was the ‘situated learning perspective’ (Kirk et al., 2000). This perspective

demonstrates that motivation is enhanced when people find their learning experiences

to be meaningful and authentic, i.e. learning skills within an authentic games context.

Kirk and McPhail (2002) introduced a modified model drawing on the knowledge

from the situated learning perspective (see Figure 1).

The authors indicated that the TGfU approach places skill learning within its game

context and allows players to: (1) see the relevance of the skills to game situations; (2)

gain an emerging understanding of how to play the game; and (3) select appropriate

applications of knowledge.

Implementing a tactical approach through action research 107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

The analysis of the affective element is essential because research indicates that the

only thing many students, who are taught using a traditional format, learn about

games is that they cannot perform the necessary complex skills to be successful

(Booth, 1983). This lack of efficacy could, and often time does, become an alienating

factor in physical education (Carlson, 1995). This is particularly troubling consider-

ing that an increasingly significant goal of games education is to enable students of all

abilities to enjoy participation so that they will have increased motivation to play and

gain the benefits of participation (Rink, 1996). Bunker and Thorpe (1986) suggested

that when teachers can help children ‘understand’ games and reduce the importance

attached to the teaching of techniques in isolation, the joy and satisfaction of games

will be open to children of all abilities.

A tactical approach to teaching games

While some researchers and practitioners have been studying and applying the TGfU

model without significant modifications, Griffin et al. (1997) used the basic principles

of TGfU to design a ‘Tactical Games Approach’ that puts equal emphasis on ‘teach-

ing sport concepts and skills’. Rather than deepen an either/or dichotomy, Griffin

et al. (1997) introduced an approach that accentuates the connection between tech-

nique and tactics.

Griffin and colleagues (1997) noted that in a tactical approach, ‘within each lesson

students practice skill development after they have experienced a game form that pre-

sents a tactical problem requiring the use of that skill’ (p. 16). From a teaching per-

spective this approach has two major rationales. First, a tactical approach would

Figure 1. Kirk and MacPhail revision of the TGfU model 2002


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

enhance greater interest and excitement for all students. Second, a tactical approach

would improve tactical knowledge and game proficiency for all students and particu-

larly for those who are not able to consistently execute motor skills successfully in

game situations (Griffin et al., 1997).

Inherent in a tactical approach is the assumption that common general strategies are

embedded within games that share similar frameworks. Whether the game form is

tennis, badminton or volleyball, general ideas of tactics are similar across net/wallgames. Because the games have much in common tactically, instruction focusing on

tactical problems can lead to positive transfer across games (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986).

Figure 2 introduces the four components of a cycle upon which the tactical lesson is

built: (1) the initial game; (2) a student-centered Q&A session that is guided by the

teacher; (3) practice as determined by the Q&A; and (4) the closing game stressing

the application of the skill in a game context. When a teacher wants the students to

address a tactical problem an ‘initial game’ would be established that forces students

to think about the tactical question under review. After some playtime the teacher

initiates a Q&A session during which questions are asked and issues discussed con-

cerning the goal of the game, the rationale and intentions of the players relative to

the skill and strategy selected, the techniques involved, the quality and effectiveness

of the chosen skill and strategy, and suggestions for improvement. After identifying

the need for specific skill practice, the students practice using a game-like drill

designed by the teacher that is intended to improve their game play. At the conclusion,

students again return to a game, which stresses the accurate application of the skill

that was performed during the practice session (Griffin et al., 1997).

The more I analyzed the potential benefits of a tactical approach relative to pro-

blems inherent to the traditional approach, the more apparent it became that

changes were necessary in my teaching strategy. What better place to begin this

process than to reflect upon the effectiveness of my own teaching practice and the

impact it was having on my pre-service teachers?

Figure 2. Tactical lesson sequence


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Action research

Such self-reflective inquiry undertaken by practitioners is considered action research,

a process in which teachers systematically and critically reflect on their work andmake

changes in their practice as a result of their reflection (Bodner & MacIsaac, 1995).

Teachers are actively involved in their own educational process. The ‘products’ of

action research generally include the generation of knowledge about teaching and

learning, increased understanding of practice, and improvements in teaching and

learning (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988).

Most of the published action research in physical education has been generally

focused on the improvement of one’s own teaching or understanding the impact of

particular methods in educating children or pre-service teachers. Some physical edu-

cators in teacher education who use or advocate action research methods include Kirk

(1983), Tinning (1987, 1992), Martinek and Butt (1988), Gore (1991), and Baker

and Stanley (1994).

For example, in Tinning’s study (1987) action research strategy was used to facili-

tate students’ reflection during student teaching experiences. Student teachers were

asked to identify an issue of concern from their teaching and to work through the

action research cycles with their peers, as well as with their cooperating teachers

and university supervisors. Participants improved the aspects of their teaching that

they considered important, and they also improved their understanding of different

issues involved in their own teaching (Tinning, 1987). Similarly, Gore (1991)

described an action research project also involving student teachers and reported

that the experience was beneficial for all participants because it forced systematic

reflection about teaching and schooling.

Using action research as a vehicle in promoting critical and reflective teaching,

Noffke and Brennan (1991) reported that ‘we have found that engaging in

action research continues to be useful in our efforts to enhance our understanding

of teaching practices, to improve those practices and to improve the situation in

which those practices take place’ (p. 200). Finally, investigators also conducted

action research describing and revealing inequalities and injustices in physical edu-

cation (Evans & Davies, 1986; Evans, 1988; Sparkes, 1992; Laws, 1994; Stanley,

1995).

Thus it seems that the emphasis on action research is increasing in the field of phys-

ical education. Consequently, I chose action research to systematically investigate my

own teaching experience related to implementing a tactical approach into my physical

education teacher education (PETE) tennis class. This investigation focused on the

physical education majors’ and my perceptions, as their teacher, regarding the com-

ponents and effectiveness of a tactical games approach.

Data collection

The participants of this study were 18 pre-service PETEmajors, 10 females and eight

males ranging from freshman to senior. Pseudonyms were used to protect the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

participants’ identity. The study was conducted during an eight-week tennis course

that met twice a week for 90 minutes. The lesson content and structure is presented

in Table 1.

The results discussed in this article derived from my self-reflection via a reflective

journal, student reflection, audio and video recordings, andpre-service teacher interviews.

Teacher educator’s self-reflection

Some of the questions guiding my reflection were: considering the tactical problem(s)

of the day, were my questions helpful and appropriate? What was my reaction to stu-

dents’ answers? How successful were the students in playing the game? If I could re-

teach today’s lesson, what aspects of the class would I teach differently?

Each entry of the journal was accompanied by the date of the class or event and con-

textual information, such as time, location, participants, focus of observation or

reflection. I audio-taped my immediate reflections at the conclusion of each class

and then transcribed the recorded observations. After analyzing the students’

responses and reviewing the videotape of my teaching I recorded any additional obser-

vations leaving a wide margin on each page to record changes, additions, or references

to other parts of the journal.

Immediate reflection

Students were also asked seven times during the semester to reflect on their learning

experience at the conclusion of the class. Participants’ responses were collected

through providing questions related to the objectives of the lesson on 3 � 5 cards.

Student interview

A structured interview of all 18 participants was done at the end of the semester. Some

of the interviews took place during regular class time while some students chose to

come in the afternoon when, as they stated ‘we are not rushed and we can talk

better’. Although these structured interviews were scheduled for 20 minutes they

actually ranged from 20 to 40 minutes.

The questions covered the following topics: (a) participants’ initial thoughts of a

tactical approach to teaching tennis; (b) changes in their thoughts and expectations

through the semester; (c) crucial times during the semester; and (d) identifying the

most and least meaningful aspects of the approach.

Data analysis

Reflection

Based on the inductive method of data analysis suggested by Altrichter et al. (1993), I

read through the text and underlined each passage that seemed important in relation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Table 1. Comparison of original and revised teaching content

Class #Date Original content Revised content

Class #1

17 March

Provide reading material

Lecture (introduce the theory and

components of a tactical approach

to teaching games

No teaching today, only recording

game-play performance

Class #2

19 March

No teaching this day, just

recording game play

Provide reading material

Lecture (introduce the theory and

components of a tactical approach

to teaching games) classroom

meeting

Class #3

24 March

Setting up to attack by creating

space on opponent’s court

Understanding the concept of creating

space

Creating space using ground strokes



Understanding the concept of creating

space


Class #4

26 March

Winning the point Using an

approach shot to win a point

Using a volley to win a point




Winning the point

Approach shot

Class #5

31 March

Introducing doubles

Defending as a pair

Using a two back formation in doubles

Attacking as a pair using up and back

formation in doubles

Attacking in a side to side formation


space on opponent’s side of the

court

Use cross-court and down the line

ground strokes (extensive ground

stroke practice)

Students were mixed up by ability

levels

Class #6

2 April

Team tennis tournament Team tennis tournament

Class #7

7 April



court

Flat serve to put opponent on

defensive at the start of a point

Use cross-court and down the line

ground strokes Game play

Continued practice of ground stroke

Forehand and backhand

Defending space on your own court

Recovering to center baseline between

shots

Class #8

9 April

Winning the point

Using the smash to win a point

Defending against attack

Returning the smash with success

Creating space using ground

strokes

Continued practice

Winning the point

Approach shot

Class #9 14

April

Winning the point

Punishing a weak short serve

To play an effective, fast attacking drop

shot

Continued ground stroke practice

Continued approach shot practice

Defending space on your own court

Recovering to center baseline between

shots (review)

(continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

to the research questions; read through the text again by only looking at the marked

passages and chose a category for each passage that expressed its contents; wrote

down for each category the passage(s) it referred to, pointing out systematic infor-

mation (the page number of the text and the margin number of the marked

passage); wrote the name of each category in the margin beside the passage it referred

to; ordered the categories by grouping concepts which belonged together in order to

give structure to the whole text by suggesting connections between individual cat-

egories; and wrote definitions to express my theoretical understanding of the category.

The definitions also helped in continuing to elaborate and refine them in the light of

my research questions (Altrichter et al., 1993).

Student interview

All interviews were transcribed verbatim for analysis. I reviewed the interview tran-

scripts and analyzed the data by utilizing constant comparison (Lincoln & Guba,

1985), which is a four-step approach involving scanning the data for common

themes, placing the data into common categories, writing about the categories and

establishing explanations (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Goetz & LeCompte, 1984).

Table 1 Continued

Class #Date Original content Revised content

Class #10

16 April

Attacking as a pair when serving

Attacking in a two-up formation

Defending as a pair against serve

Effective defense against the serve in

doubles

Winning the point

Using the volley to win a point

Continue practice ground stroke and

approach shot as lead up skills for

the volley

Continue mixing up partners

Class #11

21 April

Game play Setting up to attack by creating


court

Flat serve to put opponent on

defensive at the start of a point

Review and practice all other shots

Class #12

23 April

Game play Contingency indoor plan

Students played indoors under

modified conditions.

Students were responsible in setting up

the modified rules.

Foam balls were used

Class #13

28 April

No teaching this day just

recording. Game play

No teaching this day just recording.

Game play

Class #14

30 April

POSSIBLY USE THIS TIME FOR

MAKING UP EVERYTHING

WE NEED

Classroom meeting


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

To reduce bias I followed two methods suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985), tri-

angulation of data sources and peer debriefing. Triangulation improves credibility by

using several sources, methods, investigators, or theories. This research consisted of

various methodologies to establish triangulation. Peer debriefing occurred with a col-

league prior, during and after the eight-week period.

Results

Changing beliefs and the evolution of a teacher

The most significant impact of the research process was that in a very real way I

became a novice teacher. With equal amounts of excitement and anxiety, I was

once again at the beginning stages of a newly developing belief about teaching and

my role as a teacher in the teaching–learning process. While my progress in using

the entire approach showed gradual improvement throughout the semester, it was

not without a degree of apprehension. Prior to learning about a tactical approach I

believed that my major responsibility was to transfer my knowledge to students by

specifically and skillfully telling themwhat to do and when to do it. However, a tactical

approach to teaching challenges the notion of a primarily unidirectional approach

with the teacher as the sole leader of all activities.

The tactical approach and its emphasis on reflective pedagogy requires that stu-

dents be brought into the educational process as active learners. Because the approach

engenders several roles for students the teacher becomes more of a facilitator then a

director. I was concerned that by becoming ‘only’ a facilitator I would lose my effec-

tiveness. What this really meant was that I was anxious that I would loose control over

my class:

I am struggling with the notion that if I put all these learning experiences into game situ-

ations than I am creating a certain ‘chaos’ in which I do not always find my role. In the

past when I taught the classes, everything went in a disciplined order (warm-up, practice

drill for skill, and game play). Nonetheless, I felt that the order remained in my class

today, but the process became more student-oriented and I am giving up a substantial

part of my leadership. (Reflective Journal, 31 March)

My anxiety lessened as I realized that my teaching environment continued to rep-

resent order. As I became more comfortable I found that transferring more responsi-

bility to the students actually helped me become more effective. Because I did not have to

‘run’ all the drills I had more time to observe. I was able to provide substantially more

feedback on students’ game and practice performance.

The course of the self-changing process did involve moments of doubt, but I did

receive periodic reinforcement through this class. Progressively, I found that

I had a certain feeling of success as I was watching the videotape of students playing. I saw

that students were moving on the court to set themselves up to attack and actually fol-

lowed up with an attack. I really felt good watching them. I was especially happy with

Jennifer who seemed to understand the relationship between the tactical and technical

aspects of the game. (Reflective Journal, 21 April)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Several major factors contributed to this development, including (a) the impact of my

evolving subject matter knowledge, (b) my experience with the ‘tactical lesson

sequence’ and specifically (c) the role of the Q&A session of the lesson, and (d) the

participants’ perceptions of a high level of success and enjoyment.

Evolving subject matter knowledge

One of the first lessons I learned through reflection was that to use this approach effec-

tively I had to ‘re-learn’ tennis from a different perspective. I reported the following in

my reflective journal:

During the first week I strictly followed the instructions in the textbook [the textbook

used in class by Griffin et al. (1997)] and I did not feel effective and comfortable. As I

searched for the reason for my discomfort I realized that in order to become effective I

had to learn and analyze the basic tactics of the game of tennis. I was literally trying to

close my eyes and imagine a tennis court with two players rallying. I was mentally think-

ing through all the possible tactical combinations that I observed in tennis. After the

mental self-study I re-read the tennis lessons that I planned to use. The combination

of mentally thinking and reading about the tennis game helped me see the logical tactical

steps within the game play. (Reflective Journal, 26 March)

Following this process was critical because, although I knew how to play the game, I

discovered that I too was a product of my initial training—I did not fully understand

the tactical aspects of tennis.

The impact of the Q&A session

During the change process all four components of the lesson sequence went through

various progressions, with the Q&A session proving to be most significant in my devel-

opment. The following sequence (shown in Figure 3) indicates the major stages of the

continuum that I experienced in my learning process.

During the imitation stage or ‘cookbook’ phase, the Q&A continuum represented a

unidirectional route. I took the exact questions from the textbook that I used as a sup-

plement, and I was satisfied when the students gave the pre-described answers. I was

mainly concerned about remembering the questions and not about the cognitive

meaning of this segment. As the semester proceeded asking questions became a stan-

dard, but still methodical, practice. An analysis of field notes from videotapes of my

teaching indicated that I had a propensity to direct students rather than to ask

them questions. Consequently, I consciously moved along the continuum in my

Figure 3. The Q&A learning continuum


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

development toward rephrasing the questions based on my own language. My journal

entry stated;

Some of the questions I rephrased . . . For example, instead of asking ‘what are the types

of ground-stroke placements?’ I asked: ‘where can you place the ground-strokes to set up

for attack?’. (Reflective Journal, 2 April)

I found that my ability to ask relevant questions was greatly dependent on my increas-

ing tactical understanding of tennis. As a result, towards the end of the semester the

Q&A session became a two-way route in the teaching–learning process in which both

the pre-service teachers and myself gained invaluable information regarding the

teaching process. For example, initially when I saw somebody making a mistake in

their play I told them what they needed to do to correct it. This evolved into a

process that included me asking questions that required the students to provide the

feedback to themselves:

Ted regularly got stuck in the middle of the court. Once when I walked to him I just asked

him to think about why is he having a hard time with returning the ball? He gave me tech-

nical answers and because I was still not satisfied he finally got to the issue of court posi-

tioning. He solved his own problem. (Reflective Journal, 16 April)

This development in asking instead of telling became an essential part of my learning

to teach. Similarly, pre-service teachers also found the Q&A session invaluable in their

learning process.

Students/pre-service teachers’ views on the Q&A session: a cognitive challenge

The students indicated two main purposes of the Q&A session. First, they

reported that a skills class that includes ‘teaching by asking’ was not only phys-

ically but also cognitively challenging. Some of the pre-service teachers felt they

basically taught themselves under my facilitation. Martina, for example, indicated

in her interview, ‘when you asked us the question, we had the answer. Looking

back, it seemed like that you taught us but we actually taught ourselves’. Igor

further indicated that the self-teaching he experienced might also be a more

effective way to learn:

If a student can learn by themselves and discover the answer, it is a lot easier to remember

that answer or keep it with you than if someone else tells you. If someone from outside

tells you, you may not grasp what exactly the answer is. Someone who learns by

himself with guidance is more apt to do it again. (Final Interview)

Brooke agreed with Igor and added that asking rather then telling ‘might also make

students listen more, because they know that they would be called to answer a

question anytime’. Furthermore Brooke also analyzed the potential importance of

the Q&A session from the perspective of increasing the learner’s self-esteem. She

stated,

If a teacher was constantly telling a student, do this and do that, a student may not feel as

smart. When you ask questions that shows that you trust that they [students] know the

answer, makes them believe that they [students] are smart and that the teacher believes

that they [students] know what they are talking about. (Final Interview)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Most students agreed that the Q&A session made them think and consequently learn

more about the game. All participants seemed to agree that challenging students’

minds would potentially increase their learning and the desire to learn again.

The students pointed out that I used questioning to provide them with feedback

about their performance. Boris stated that I ‘asked questions that was pointing out

certain deficiencies’ in his play. Igor added that the questions ‘made him adjust’

while he was playing, ‘like what shot is needed to get to the next shot and how to

get a point using certain shots’. Finally, Cole summarized the feedback purpose of

the Q&A session,

You normally asked us what the tactical problems were. You would ask us certain situ-

ations, how would you react to it, where would you go after you hit the ball? You

would put us in a position and we would have to tell you where we were going to be in

order to win the point or set up for an approach or volley. (Final Interview)

Overall the students suggested that the Q&A session was an essential element in their

learning process as it challenged their decision-making abilities. Answering the ques-

tions initiated a cognitive processing which resulted in students adjusting their tactical

thinking during game play and practice. The combination of the cognitive feedback

and the physical responses also greatly contributed to the students’ overall under-

standing of the game.

From my perspective, the dual-directional conversation in the Q&A session became

an essential way of communicating with the students. At the beginning of this project

during the imitation and rephrase stage of the continuum I was mechanical and more

interested in the outcome (students’ answers) of the Q&A session. As I better under-

stood the role of the Q&A session my focus shifted from looking at the answers as out-

comes to examining them as part of an ongoing feedback process. In the past I directed

the students to stay at the baseline andmove to the front or the back of the court depend-

ing on the shot. In this project, through the use of questions, the students were tellingme

how and what to do in solving the same tactical problems. If, during their practice, they

did not follow up on their answers then I just asked the question again.

Participants’ sense of fun and success

One of the most meaningful findings for me was related to the pre-service teachers’

perception of fun. Boris stated in his interview,

Some of my other classes were so boring. We did the same thing time after time. You

don’t want to be boring and have kids wait in line so they don’t want to come. I

enjoyed this class and looked forward to coming.

Another student, Igor, concluded that the reason why everybody was ‘very into what

was going on’ was because the class ‘had fun and learned at the same time, which

usually doesn’t go together’.

The increased level of success and enjoyment from all parties became an essential

factor contributing to my changing beliefs. My perception of the pre-service teachers’

improvement in game play made me more comfortable and increasingly motivated to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

continue the journey. Students demonstrated an increase in tactical awareness as well

as skill development. They indicated that part of their sense of success originated from

immediately connecting the practiced skills with game-play, which helped them

understand the tactical purpose of the learned skill:

I liked this new approach because for myself, I play with my friends but I never knew what

to do and how to do it. This approach tried to focus on what to do first and then I could

figure out how to do it and what I needed to work on in order to improve. (Boris, Final

Interview)

Implementing a tactical approach with an emphasis on reflective pedagogy literally

challenged the basic assumptions that I brought with me into the teaching profession.

Lessons learned as a teacher educator

I learned that despite my past teaching experiences, beginning to teach with a non-tra-

ditional approach caused me to make mistakes similar to errors I made during my

student-teaching experience. The most significant indication of this was my depen-

dence on lesson plans during the beginning of the semester. Similar to my experience

in teacher education, Stroot and Morton (1989) found in their study that one of the

main characteristics of beginning physical education teachers in the K-12 setting was

an extreme ‘plan dependence’ while veteran teachers were ‘plan independent’. Begin-

ning teachers relied heavily on written planning materials without deviating from their

content, especially when teaching unfamiliar activities.

My plan dependence resulted in two additional errors. First, the pace ofmy course was

too fast, especially at the outset. At the beginning of the semester I rushed throughmany

of the practice activities in order to accomplish all I had planned. Most pre-service tea-

chers in the class were frustrated and indicated that I should ‘slow down’. Slowing

down essentially meant providing significantly more practice time. Table 1 also intro-

duces the content revisions I made throughout the study in order to slow down.

Secondly, I was not able to accommodate students with different skill levels.

Because my main concern was staying focused on the content of the lesson my ten-

dency was to go through the lessons without assessing the students’ readiness to

move on to the next step.

The next lesson that I learned was related to pre-service teachers’ initial resistance

to accepting the new teaching approach. Their resistance originated from two main

sources, the first being the inappropriately fast pace mentioned above. As I slowed

the instruction down by repeating some lessons, most pre-service teachers became

less resistant. This was indicated by the lessening of both the number and the intensity

of the comments regarding the need for skill practice.

More importantly, the second reason for resistance is related to their ‘apprentice-

ship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975) about how games are taught. Several pre-service

teachers had already acquired a deeply ingrained technically oriented focus about

games teaching. They were completely immersed in a more traditional approach

and had great difficulty looking at learning a different way. Indeed, most of the partici-

pants were beginners and the tactical understanding that they gained through game


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

play, practice, and the Q&A session did not seem to help them in the actual execution.

Consequently, while I was trying to teach tactically the students were persistent in

pulling me back towards the ‘drill-for-skill’ approach. As an example of the continu-

ous battle I quote one of Diez’s reflections from the beginning of the semester:

Right now we are looking at tactical approaches to tennis, but why? We should start out

muchmore basic and then work up . . . I am not saying that your approach is totally wrong

but stop focusing too much on tactical until everyone understands and can apply the

technical. (Student Reflection, 31 March)

Similarly, most of the students had problems focusing on tactical concepts and at

the same time paying attention to the improvement of skill execution. Maggie

reported:

It was hard to concentrate on proper positioning and hitting to an open space at the same

time . . . a lot of shots were missed, a lot of shots were hit too hard. Maybe I concentrated

going back to the baseline more than hitting. (Student Reflection, 26 March)

Most participants, like Maggie, had some trouble with focusing on both aspects of the

game. Nonetheless, with the exception of Diez, all the pre-service teachers came to

class and took the time to learn tennis from a tactical perspective. Unfortunately,

Diez did not even attempt to look at the possible advantages of this approach and

decided to drop out of the study.

The pre-service teachers’ concerns were understandable. The struggle between

long-standing habits of thought and practice and the distinctly different thinking

and practices required by a tactically oriented direction was difficult. Changing the

order of the traditional lesson sequence to a tactically oriented sequence required a

significant shift in the pre-service teachers’ (and my) thinking. The literature in phys-

ical education indicates that pre-service teachers enter formal training with well-

formed beliefs about teaching, developed during the recruit stage of professional

socialization (Lawson, 1991; Kagan, 1992; Hutchinson, 1993). Their prior beliefs

and experiences filtered what these pre-service teachers learned during this class.

They were ‘recruits’ into a new system and I had to consider that most recruits initially

adopt ideas that fit their beliefs and resist those that do not. Such persistence of beliefs

highlights the power of recruit-stage experiences to limit what recruits learn (Doolittle

et al., 1993). These authors further suggested that recruits’ beliefs about what phys-

ical education should do for students, forms ‘through their own participation in phys-

ical education classes and sports as youngsters, persist as a reference point against

which are measured any alternative views they encounter during teacher education’

(Doolittle et al., 1993, p. 364).

Lessons learned as a teacher: changing beliefs

In their self-study of implementing a tactical approach to fifth and sixth grade physical

education classes, Gubacs et al. (1998) found a shifting role of teacher as director to

teacher as facilitator in the teaching–learning process. A participant in the study by

Gubacs et al. (1998) specifically stated that by teaching with a tactical approach


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

‘you are [teacher] giving up some directing, because you are becoming a facilitator

more than becoming a transmitter of information’.

Thus a shift in my beliefs started with the above project and became reinforced by

the present study. The tactical approach challenged my understanding of games.

Eventually, similar to teachers in Berkowitz’s (1996) and Butler’s (1997) studies,

which were conducted in the K-12 setting, the focus of the lessons changed from

executing skills to understanding tactics. Berkowitz realized that with her traditional

methods of teaching she made very little impact on the students’ level of skill improve-

ment. She stated that this shift in emphasis in her teaching resulted in ‘students being

highly engaged in skills and tactics that are game-related, rather then working on skills

in an isolated situation’ (p. 44).

Consequently my focus also changed from a concern about technical proficiency to

a concern about combining student understanding and technical learning. As an

outcome of the present study I concur with Calderhead (1989) that action research

could result in teachers changing their beliefs about their own teaching practices,

the curriculum, or any other aspect of the teaching environment. However, there

was more than ‘just’ a change of focus concerning the use of skill development, strat-

egy and tactics. My concept of the role of the teacher and of the student in the overall

learning process was transformed.

This transformation continues to build a case for the impact of learning and teach-

ing styles upon acquiring and mastering knowledge. The underlying thesis is that an

individual learns more effectively when information is presented in a manner congru-

ent with the individual’s favored method of acquiring and processing information.

Accordingly the students may have responded favorably because I used a different,

more fitting teaching style. Moreover as a teacher I may have felt more effective

because the teaching method allowed a presentation of information that was congru-

ent with my scheme of attaining and processing information.

The implications of this are significant as indicated by the fact that I have been able

to successfully incorporate tactical thinking and reflective pedagogy into all of my

classes including my graduate class of philosophy and sociology of sport.

Lessons learned as a teacher: content knowledge

My experience was similar to that of the teachers in the Coventry project, a long-term

action research project led by Almond (1986) that indicated how teachers found

themselves learning more about games that they had played and taught for years.

Consistent with this, Berkowitz (1996) suggested that planning lessons from a tactical

rather than a technique-based approach taught her to see games differently. Each

teacher learned something new about hockey, badminton, or volleyball just by teach-

ing a different way. The practitioners expressed surprise at the new understanding

they gained by re-thinking the same old games.

Berkowitz noted,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

The tactical approach required me to think in a way that had not been taught in my

teacher education program. It required me to think through tactical problems involved

in game play and to develop a framework that integrated tactical problems and technical

skills. (Berkowitz, 1996, p. 45)

Lessons learned as a teacher: fun and success

In this discussion I will focus on the premise that a tactical approach provides greater

interest and excitement for all students, especially those of lower ability (Almond,

1986; Bunker & Thorpe, 1986; Berkowitz, 1996; Butler, 1997; Griffin et al., 1997).

One of the stronger arguments for the use of a tactical approach to teaching games

is that it engenders greater interest and excitement by the students.

Practicing and immediately using skills in a game was important from not only a

psychomotor but also an affective perspective. Besides meaningful experiences in

the psychomotor and cognitive learning areas the participants of this study frequently

mentioned the importance of having fun in class. These pre-service teachers

suggested that more game play with meaningful activities resulted in more fun. Pre-

service teachers in this investigation connected their experiences of fun and enjoyment

to increased frequency of game play. The more opportunities to participate in mean-

ingful practice and play games, the more fun was reported during the study.

Pre-service teachers’ sense of success

In the traditional approaches many students do not experience success, and in fact

some students are ‘set up’ for failure from the beginning (Bunker & Thorpe, 1986;

Doolittle & Girard, 1991) because of their low technical ability in executing skills.

A tactical approach addresses this issue by shifting the emphasis to the cognitive

rather then the purely technical aspects associated with games. ‘In this way it is

argued that each individual can gain equal access to games, regardless of their level

of physical ability or skill and each student can have the opportunity to experience

success, satisfaction, and enjoyment’ (Laws, 1990, p. 2).

The pre-service teachers in this study enjoyed a sense of success resulting from their

perception of increased knowledge. Participants indicated that although they had

some difficulty in executing skills they continued to feel successful because the

decisions they made were correct. Jenny and Martina, for example, suggested that

their skill execution would improve with practice but for now, at least, they under-

stood what to do and they gained an appreciation towards the game.

The participants of this study remainedmotivated throughout the semester because

they were always practicing the skills and were continuously moving in a modified or

full game context. During the length of this project, I did not hear once the all too fam-

iliar question, ‘When do we play the game?’ because the pre-service teachers continu-

ously played and practiced in a game context that resulted in fun and meaningful

experiences.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Similar to the pre-service teachers’ experiences, teachers in previous studies

conducted in the K-12 setting indicated that the students were more emotional,

engrossed, and on task in tactical lessons than in technical lessons (Berkowitz,

1996; Butler, 1997; Mitchell et al., 1997). One teacher in Mitchell et al.’s (1997)

study stated:

It is very interesting to see the differences in the students’ responses. For the most part in

the tactical class the kids are moving right along and going at all times. In the technical

class the kids are just going through the motions. I could see the difference in their motiv-

ation. The tactical class is much more involved in finding the understanding of the game.

(p. 64)

These participants’ sense of success and enjoyment was similar to what I experienced

as a teacher educator in this project.

Teacher educator’s sense of success

Observing that the participants were not only learning but also enjoying themselves

provided me with a sense of success. From a teacher educator’s perspective, I

found natural enjoyment in observing students’ high level of involvement in the activi-

ties. I vividly remember that in the past even in my best classes I had to have motiva-

tional talks from time-to-time with my students. In this class the activities and the

challenge perpetuated the motivation. Also, I found enjoyment in the fact that by

transferring more responsibility to the students I had more time to observe and

provide feedback. Similar to my feeling of success in the teacher education setting,

K-12 teachers in Sariscsany’s (1996) and Mitchell et al.’s (1997) study found the col-

laborative effort challenging as well as motivating not only for the students, but also

for themselves. ‘Those kids were psyched every time they came in’, a teacher said.

‘Everything they did was done like a game, so everything was fun. They were so

into volleyball, they did not want volleyball to end. I was as excited as the kids’

(Sariscsany, 1996, p. 48).

In summary, I observed that this method kept the students motivated and on-task

throughout the classes. A tactical approach allowed for high activity ratios as well as

teaching environments that kept motivation and interest high.

The students expected and received more playtime and challenge from this

approach. The implications of the affective results of this study support the idea

that teachers from K-12 and beyond can teach a physical education class with the

goal of increasing students’ understanding and skills in games while contributing to

affective goals. Positive dispositions toward participation in sports and games are

likely to be the product of the increased experience, understanding, and skill in

games and sport that these students experienced (Carlson, 1995).

Lessons learned as a teacher-researcher

I found that being a teacher-researcher had a motivating advantage over other

research methods. Because action research is inquiry into one’s own practice, the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

distance between the inquiring subject and the participants of a study could be greatly

reduced (Altrichter et al., 1993). Despite the complexities of this action research

project I learned that this in-depth reflective experience brought me closer to my stu-

dents both as a professional and as a fellow teacher. I learned to listen to the opinions

and responses of my students during our continuous interchange of action and

reflection.

Definitions presented by action research theorists highlight at least two goals of all

action research: (1) improvement of practice including the situation in which the prac-

tice takes place; and (2) involvement of all participants who take responsibility for their

own actions in the research process (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Kemmis & McTaggart,

1988). The pre-service teachers in this study took their responsibility seriously and

provided me with continuous feedback during the research process. As a teacher edu-

cator/action researcher I became closely involved with the participants of this study as

we shared the responsibility of teaching and learning with a non-traditional approach.

We all learned early in the semester that the pre-service teachers’ success at learning

tennis with a tactical approach was greatly dependent on my success of learning to

teach with a new approach. Consequently, a true collaboration was built among the

participants of this study.

References

Almond, L. (1986) Asking teachers to research, in: R. Thorpe, D. Bunker & L. Almond (Eds)

Rethinking games teaching (Loughborough, UK, University of Technology), 35–44.

Altrichter, H., Posch, P. & Somekh, B. (1993) Teachers investigate their work: an introduction to the

methods of action research (New York, Routledge).

Baker, B. & Stanley, L. S. (1994) Issues in culturally responsive teacher education, paper presented

at the Madison Area Action Research Network Conference, Madison, WI.

Berkowitz, R. J. (1996) From skill to tactics, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,

67(4), 44–45.

Bodner, G. M. & MacIsaac, D. L. (1995) A critical examination of relevance in science education

research, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in

Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA, 22–25 April.

Booth, K. (1983) An introduction to netball, Bulletin of Physical Education, 19(1), 27–31.

Bunker, D. & Thorpe, R. (1986) The curriculum model, in: R. Thorpe, D. Bunker & L. Almond

(Eds) Rethinking games teaching (Loughborough, UK, University of Technology), 7–10.

Butler, J. (1997) How would Socrates teach games? A constructivist approach, Journal of Physical

Education, Recreation and Dance, 68(9), 42–47.

Calderhead, J. (1989) Reflective teaching and teacher education, Teaching and Teacher Education,

39(2), 48–54.

Carlson, T. (1995) We hate gym: students’ alienation from physical education, Journal of Teaching

Physical Education, 14, 467–477.

Carr, W. & Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming critical: knowing through action research (Geelong, Australia,

Deakin University Press).

Doolittle, S., Dodds, P. & Placek, J. H. (1993) Persistence of beliefs about teaching during formal

training of pre-service teachers, in: S. Stroot (Ed.) Socialization into physical education [Mono-

graph], Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12, 355–365.

Doolittle, S. & Girard, K. (1991) A dynamic approach to teaching games in elementary PE, Journal

of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 62(4), 57–62.

Evans, J. (1988) Teachers, teaching and control in physical education (London, The Falmer Press).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Evans, J. & Davies, B. (1986) Sociology, schooling and physical education, in: J. Evans (Ed.) Phys-

ical education, sport and schooling. Studies in the sociology of physical education (London, The

Falmer Press).

French, K., Werner, P., Rink, J., Taylor, K. & Hussey, K. (1996) The effects of a 3-week unit of tac-

tical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction in badminton performance of ninth-grade

students, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 418–438.

French, K., Werner, P., Taylor, K., Hussey, K. & Jones, J. (1996) The effects of a 6-week unit of

tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction in badminton performance of

ninth-grade students, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 439–463.

Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research

(New York, Aldine).

Goetz, J. P. & LeCompte, M. D. (1984) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research

(Orlando, FL, Academic Press).

Gore, J. (1991) Practicing what we preach: action research and the supervision of student teachers,

in: B. R. Tabachnick & K. Zeichner (Eds) Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher

education (London, The Falmer Press), 253–272.

Graham, K., Ellis, S. D., Willaims, C., Kwak, E. C. & Werner, P. (1996) High- and low-skilled

target students’ academic achievement and instructional performance in 6-week badminton

unit, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 477–489.

Grehaigne, J.-F., Godbout, P. & Bouthier, D. (1997) Performance assessment in team sports,

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16, 500–516.

Grehaigne, J.-F., Godbout, P. & Bouthier, D. (1999) The foundations of tactics and strategy in team

sports, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 18, 159–174.

Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A. & Oslin, J. L. (1997) Teaching sport concepts and skills: a tactical games

approach (Champaigh, IL, Human Kinetics).

Gubacs, K., Griffin, L., Supaporn, S. & Carney, M. (1998) ‘Orderly chaos’: future teacher educa-

tors’ learning experiences with a tactical approach to games teaching, paper presented at the

National AAHPERD Convention, Reno, NV.

Holt, N. L., Strean, W. B. & Bengoechea, E. G. (2002) Expanding the teaching games for under-

standing model: new avenues for future research and practice, Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 21, 177–192.

Hopper, T. & Bell, F. (2000) A tactical framework for teaching games: teaching strategic

understanding, CAHPERD, 66(4), 14–19.

Hutchinson, G. (1993) Prospective teachers’ perspectives on teaching physical education: an

interview study on the recruitment phase of teacher socialization, in: S. Stroot (Ed.) Socia-

lization into physical education [Monograph], Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 12,

344–354.

Kagan, D. (1992) Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers, Review of Edu-

cational Research, 62, 129–170.

Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (1988) The action research reader (Geelong, Australia, Deakin

University).

Kirk, D. (1983) Theoretical guidelines for thinking about games, Bulletin of Physical Education,

19(1), 41–45.

Kirk, D., Brooker, R. & Braiuka, S. (2000) Teaching games for understanding: a situated perspec-

tive on student learning, paper presented to the American Educational Research Association

Annual Meeting, New Orleans, April.

Kirk, D. &MacPhail, A. (2002) Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: rethinking

the Bunker–Thorpe model, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21, 177–192.

Laws, C. J. (1990) Individualism and teaching games—a contradiction of terms, P.E.A. Research

Supplement, 8, 1–6.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Laws, C. J. (1994) Rhetorical justification for new approaches to teaching games—are physical edu-

cation teachers deluding themselves?, in: F. Bell & G. Van Gyn (Eds) Proceedings for the 10th

Commonwealth & International Scientific Congress (Victoria, British Columbia, University of

Victoria), 175–180.

Lawson, H. A. (1991) Three perspectives on induction and a normative order for physical edu-

cation, Quest, 43, 20–36.

Lawton, J. (1989) Comparison of two teaching methods in games, Bulletin of Physical Education,

25(1), 35–38.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry (New York, Sage).

Lortie, D. (1975) Schoolteacher: a sociological study (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).

Mandigo, J. L. & Holt, N. L. (2000) Putting theory into practice: how cognitive evaluation theory

can help us motivate children in physical activity environments, Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation, and Dance, 71(1), 44–49.

Martinek, T. & Butt, K. (1988) An application of an action research model for changing instruc-

tional practice, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 7, 214–220.

McPherson, S. & French, K. (1991) Changes in cognitive strategy and motor skill in tennis, Journal

of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 13, 26–41.

Mitchell, S., Griffin, L. & Oslin, J. (1997) Teaching invasion games: a comparison of two instruc-

tional approaches, Pedagogy in Practice, 3(2), 56–69.

Mitchell, S., Oslin, J. & Griffin, L. L. (1995) The effects of two instructional approaches on game

performance, Pedagogy in Practice, 1(1), 36–48.

Noffke, S. E. & Brennan, M. (1991) Student teachers use action research, in: K. Zeichner & R.

Tabachnik (Eds) Issues and practices in inquiry-oriented teacher education (London & Philadel-

phia, The Falmer Press).

Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A. & Griffin, L. L. (1998) The Game Performance Assessment Instrument

(GPAI): development and preliminary validation, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17,

231–243.

Rink, J. (1996) Tactical and skill approaches to teaching sport and games: introduction, Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 397–399.

Rink, J. (2000) Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

20, 112–128.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E. & Graham, K. C. (1996) Implications for practice and research, Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 490–502.

Rink, J. E., French, K. E. & Tjeerdsma, B. L. (1996) Foundations and issues for teaching games and

sport, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15(4), 399–417.

Rovegno, I., Nevett, M. & Babiarz, M. (2001) Chapter 5: Learning and teaching invasion-game

tactics in 4th grade: introductions and theoretical perspective, Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 21, 177–192.

Sariscsany, M. (1996) Turning ideas into practice, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and

Dance, 67(3).

Sparkes, G. M. (1992) Teachers’ attitudes toward change and subsequent improvements in class-

room teaching, Journal of Educational Research, 80, 111–117.

Stanley, L. S. (1995) Multicultural questions, action research answers, Quest, 47(1), 19–33.

Stroot, S. A. &Morton, P. J. (1989) Blueprints for learning, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

8, 213–222.

Swanson, R. A. & Spears, B. (1995) History of sport and physical education in the United States

(Dubuque, IO, Brown & Benchmark).

Thorpe, R. D. & Bunker, D. J. (1983) A changing focus in games teaching, in: L. Almond (Ed.) The

place of physical education in schools (London, Kogan/Page), 42–71.Tinning, R. (1987) Beyond the development of a utilitarian teaching perspective: an Australian

case study of action research in teacher preparation, in: G. Barrette, R. Feingold, C. Rees &


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

M. Pieron (Eds) Myths, models and methods in sport pedagogy (Champaign, IL, Human

Kinetics), 113–123.

Tinning, R. (1992) Reading action research: notes on knowledge and human interests, Quest, 44(1),

1–14.

Tjeerdsma, B., Rink, J. E. & Graham, C. (1996) Student perceptions, values, and beliefs prior to,

during, and after badminton instruction, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 466–476.

Turner, A. P. (1996) Teaching for understanding: myth or reality? Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation and Dance, 67(4), 46–48.

Werner, P., Bunker, D. J. & Thorpe, R. D. (1996) Teaching games for understanding: evolution of a

model, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 67(1), 28–33.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tul

ane

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

6:16

23

Aug

ust 2

013

Documents

Implementing a tactical approach through action research