Dear colleagues
Please find link to our new interactive and resource rich site on game-based learning approaches. The TGfU SIG executive has worked with a professional website development company, using our membership fees, to create to unique resource into games teaching and coaching. The site features extension social bibliography libraries on games teaching/coaching, reviews on current research articles, video footage on game-based learning approaches, members pages to edit to refine insights on an array on game-based learning approaches and insights on current and past projects related to game-based learning.
In addition, the website offers a link to colleagues round the world through this blog, conferences and workshops. We hope to see many of you at the 5th International TGfU conference to be held in Loughborough July 16 to 18. Links to the conference on the website.
Comments on the site welcome here. Details on joining the SIG in the website.
Regards and Happy New Year
Tim Hopper, TGfU SIG Chair.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Game Centred Learning in Physical Education - Panelists
Game Centred Learning in Physical Education
The focus of this workshop/panel is to create a forum for discussion about the role of games centered learning approaches in physical education. There will be parallel discussions on SKYPE connected to members from the TGfU SIG with the speaker presentations broadcasted using USTREAM. The panel members will speak for 10 mins each followed by round-table discussions based on the key issues identified by the panelists. A final sharing and discussion of the round tables will conclude the session. Here are a short insight on the panelists presentations:
Joy Butler: Will there be a time when the TGfU movement has served its purpose?
Ontological and epistemological decisions are crucial to the health of PE programs, since they encourage them to change with the rest of society and culture. TGfU has provided an invaluable catalyst for such evolutions, but in this presentation, I will argue that once 'good pedagogy' has been established, the purposes of the movement will have been served.
Len Almond: The Craft of the Teacher in TGfU
This session will highlight three features of a Rethinking THfU process:
1. Intelligent performance characteristics.
2. The art and science of practice
3. Pedagogy
In order to illustrate this the presentation will develop the idea of how Games Sense and Technical Prowess can be redefined in the intelligent practice of one’s craft – the informed practice of the teacher and the learner
Wendy Piltz. Play Practice: Framing the teaching practice for game centered learning
Game centred learning is a complex process that can be difficult for teachers and coaches to grasp and integrate into their practice. In order to assist professionals improve this capability, Play Practice presents the processes of ‘shaping’, ‘focusing’ and ‘enhancing’ to frame teaching practice and enable sustained professional learning to occur. These processes will be described and connected to the design and facilitation of engaging game centred learning environments.
David Kirk. The normalization of innovation, models-based practice, and sustained curriculum renewal in PE.
The challenge of educational innovation is not merely the creation of good ideas or of generating interest and enthusiasm among teachers. It is, in addition, sustaining innovative practice once it is in place. The tendency within school system is towards normalizing innovative practice, in order to make it fit with existing structures. My proposal for sustainable curriculum renewal in physical education is a models-based approach to the curriculum located within networked learning communities of schools, universities and other partners.
Blog members should select which panelists presentation they wish to participate in at the panel session and then send it to Tim Hopper (thopper@uvic.ca) along with their SKYPE address to set up their access to the group discussion on Thursday June 23rd.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Game centred approaches in PE and Sport
The title is more of a procedural issue - the teacher or coach chooses a specific form of practice. Whether there are pedagogies associated with them is far from clear. With the exception of Play Practice, all the other are variations on a theme. What we need to do is to clarify what each brand name means - what are the similarities and differences between them?
In the same way we tend to use words like pedagogies in so many different ways to the point where they are too far removed from being a guide to informed and intelligent practice. For me pedagogy is the art and science of engaging with students for productive learning. This stipulative statement focuses on engagement with learners, establishing relationships and giving students a voice in the learning process. The next step is to identify what capabilities and competences need to acquired, refined and shaped by experience of what works well (using an informed eye of course). This leads me to say that the art and science of practising (in the learning process) needs to be revived. What are developmental appropriate practices in teaching games? What practices lead to progression and development? What is the role of personal practice by the student in their own time? These are simply a few that I would address first.
Back to the title of the blog. Since TGFU emerged as a brand name with a number of different models there is one factor that has largely been ignored. What is its conceptual framework? Why did it develop in the way it did? Do we need a different TGFU for the 21st century? My emphasis would be on understanding - what does it entail? I don't mean a model just a return to re-building a conceptual framework that becomes a real guide to practice.
There are lots of exciting things happening within the teaching of games so can we harness this goodwill, intellectual rigour and enthusiasm for the subject through this blog.
Len
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
AIESEP conference in Limerick - Game Centred Learning in PE
Four recognized scholars and practitioners of game centred approaches to teaching in PE have been invited to share their insights on games teaching in PE.
As an experiment the TGfU sig plans to broadcast this presentation to TGfU sig members on Thursday June 23rd 2.00 to 3.15 pm GMT + 1 hour.
More details to follow....
· Joy Butler: Will there be a time when the TGfU movement has served its purpose?
· Len Almond: The Craft of the Teacher in TGFU
· Wendy Piltz: Play practice framing the teaching practice for game centered learning
· David Kirk: The normalization of innovation, models-based practice, and sustained curriculum renewal in PE.
As an experiment the TGfU sig plans to broadcast this presentation to TGfU sig members on Thursday June 23rd 2.00 to 3.15 pm GMT + 1 hour.
More details to follow....
Friday, October 29, 2010
Challenges and Opportunities of using Game-Centered approaches to teaching, coaching and learning
I have created this ‘blog’ titled 'Challenges and Opportunities of using Game-Centered approaches to teaching and coaching' to offer a first contribution to the Game-Centered approaches 'blogspot'.
As Armour (2010) has recently stated, sport pedagogy is a field whose time has come to bring people together to consider the needs of all young learners when teaching and coaching. Thus, it is imperative that we can review the research literature to locate evidence for some of the possible challenges that teachers and coaches face when implementing game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching as well as some of the possible opportunities of these approaches. For this task I will refer only to what I consider are the three most important challenges and opportunities of game-centered approaches. First I will overview the potential challenges before turning to the opportunities.
Challenges of Game-Centered approaches
Given that the time is right for sport pedagogy, I feel that it is pertinent to highlight that the most fundamental challenge is in supporting teachers and coaches while they develop their understanding and embodiment of game-centered approaches AND constructivist theories of learning (Harvey et al., 2010, Light & Evans, 2010; Light, 2008). Certainly, planning to prevent a ‘roll out the ball’ teaching approach is critical (Harvey et al., 2010; Howarth, 2005) and more specifically, modifying the training environment (Harvey et al., 2010) in order to ‘get the game right’ (Thorpe & Bunker, 2008) using the ‘goldilocks principle’ (Rovegno et al., 2001). In addition, planning pertinent higher order questions to stimulate critical thinking and dialogue among players is a key pedagogical technique to foster players learning.
Secondly, the repositioning of coach (Harvey et al., 2010; Light, 2004) so they can ‘step back’ and facilitate player learning by using the aforementioned strategies of game modifications and questioning. What is more, this stepping back allows for the reduction of power relations between the players and the teacher/coach so they are positioned as a partner in learning (Light, 2004).
Finally, and importantly, Light (2004) had found that the aesthetics of training and the expectations of the club committee or school management may actually deter teachers and coaches from using these approaches. As one of Light’s study participants mentioned, I do drills when the committee come round, but I use Game Sense at all other times.
In sum, all of these factors, pedagogy, the repositioning of the teacher/coach, and the aesthetics of training are all important challenges that teachers and coaches must address when implementing game-centred approaches.
Opportunities of Game-Centered approaches
Given that in most games, especially team games, only a small percentage of time is spent on-the-ball, the biggest opportunity for game-centered approaches is that it can look to develop players skills for working off-the-ball (Harrison et al., 2004, Harvey, 2006, Light, 2004, Turner & Martinek, 1999). Indeed, my assertion, along with that of the researchers cited above, is that teaching the tactical aspects of games can only occur when players are taught within the game context. Playing in game-type situations in practice enables players to develop decision-making and aspects of a ‘sense of the game’ through implicit learning that cannot be directly taught to players (Light & Evans, 2010). This emphasis was also one of the major reasons for the initial development of the Teaching Games for Understanding model in the 1980’s which followed on from the approaches in France of Mahlo (1974) and Deleplace (1966, 1979) where they investigated the modelling of practice in team games. From the work of Mahlo and Deleplace, a school of thought emerged that recognized cognitive processes to be necessary for the correct execution of motor skills within game situations (see Gréhaigne, Richard, and Griffin 2005 for a review).
Secondly, and linked to the first opportunity I highlighted, teaching ‘through and in the game’ (Launder, 2001, p. 55) not only enables positive transfer from practice sessions to match situations (Harvey, 2009, Harvey et al., 2010, Light, 2004) but also positive transfer from game within the same category of games (Jones & Farrow 1999, Memmert & Harvey, 2010, Mitchell & Oslin 1999).
The final opportunity of game-centered approaches are their ability for the development of independent players (Light, 2004) and player motivation (Evans & Light, 2008, Light, 2004). It has also been shown that skillful questioning can promote engagement of players (Harvey, 2009, Harvey et al., 2010).
As with the challenges, these three factors are interdependent and all influence the teacher or coaches ability to utilise game-centered approaches to teaching and coaching. Nonetheless I would like to stimulate some discussion on the Practitioner Research Network by concluding with some questions:
1. How prevalent is the use of game-centered approaches to teaching and/or coaching?
2. How did you learn/not learn about game-centered approaches?
3. What do you feel are some of the solutions to the challenges highlighted above?
4. What are some of the additional benefits of game-centered approaches to teaching and/or coaching? (e.g. learning in the affective domain, ethical development, etc.)
5. What are some of the factors which may influence the incorporation of game-centered approaches into your teaching and/or coaching?
As Armour (2010) has recently stated, sport pedagogy is a field whose time has come to bring people together to consider the needs of all young learners when teaching and coaching. Thus, it is imperative that we can review the research literature to locate evidence for some of the possible challenges that teachers and coaches face when implementing game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching as well as some of the possible opportunities of these approaches. For this task I will refer only to what I consider are the three most important challenges and opportunities of game-centered approaches. First I will overview the potential challenges before turning to the opportunities.
Challenges of Game-Centered approaches
Given that the time is right for sport pedagogy, I feel that it is pertinent to highlight that the most fundamental challenge is in supporting teachers and coaches while they develop their understanding and embodiment of game-centered approaches AND constructivist theories of learning (Harvey et al., 2010, Light & Evans, 2010; Light, 2008). Certainly, planning to prevent a ‘roll out the ball’ teaching approach is critical (Harvey et al., 2010; Howarth, 2005) and more specifically, modifying the training environment (Harvey et al., 2010) in order to ‘get the game right’ (Thorpe & Bunker, 2008) using the ‘goldilocks principle’ (Rovegno et al., 2001). In addition, planning pertinent higher order questions to stimulate critical thinking and dialogue among players is a key pedagogical technique to foster players learning.
Secondly, the repositioning of coach (Harvey et al., 2010; Light, 2004) so they can ‘step back’ and facilitate player learning by using the aforementioned strategies of game modifications and questioning. What is more, this stepping back allows for the reduction of power relations between the players and the teacher/coach so they are positioned as a partner in learning (Light, 2004).
Finally, and importantly, Light (2004) had found that the aesthetics of training and the expectations of the club committee or school management may actually deter teachers and coaches from using these approaches. As one of Light’s study participants mentioned, I do drills when the committee come round, but I use Game Sense at all other times.
In sum, all of these factors, pedagogy, the repositioning of the teacher/coach, and the aesthetics of training are all important challenges that teachers and coaches must address when implementing game-centred approaches.
Opportunities of Game-Centered approaches
Given that in most games, especially team games, only a small percentage of time is spent on-the-ball, the biggest opportunity for game-centered approaches is that it can look to develop players skills for working off-the-ball (Harrison et al., 2004, Harvey, 2006, Light, 2004, Turner & Martinek, 1999). Indeed, my assertion, along with that of the researchers cited above, is that teaching the tactical aspects of games can only occur when players are taught within the game context. Playing in game-type situations in practice enables players to develop decision-making and aspects of a ‘sense of the game’ through implicit learning that cannot be directly taught to players (Light & Evans, 2010). This emphasis was also one of the major reasons for the initial development of the Teaching Games for Understanding model in the 1980’s which followed on from the approaches in France of Mahlo (1974) and Deleplace (1966, 1979) where they investigated the modelling of practice in team games. From the work of Mahlo and Deleplace, a school of thought emerged that recognized cognitive processes to be necessary for the correct execution of motor skills within game situations (see Gréhaigne, Richard, and Griffin 2005 for a review).
Secondly, and linked to the first opportunity I highlighted, teaching ‘through and in the game’ (Launder, 2001, p. 55) not only enables positive transfer from practice sessions to match situations (Harvey, 2009, Harvey et al., 2010, Light, 2004) but also positive transfer from game within the same category of games (Jones & Farrow 1999, Memmert & Harvey, 2010, Mitchell & Oslin 1999).
The final opportunity of game-centered approaches are their ability for the development of independent players (Light, 2004) and player motivation (Evans & Light, 2008, Light, 2004). It has also been shown that skillful questioning can promote engagement of players (Harvey, 2009, Harvey et al., 2010).
As with the challenges, these three factors are interdependent and all influence the teacher or coaches ability to utilise game-centered approaches to teaching and coaching. Nonetheless I would like to stimulate some discussion on the Practitioner Research Network by concluding with some questions:
1. How prevalent is the use of game-centered approaches to teaching and/or coaching?
2. How did you learn/not learn about game-centered approaches?
3. What do you feel are some of the solutions to the challenges highlighted above?
4. What are some of the additional benefits of game-centered approaches to teaching and/or coaching? (e.g. learning in the affective domain, ethical development, etc.)
5. What are some of the factors which may influence the incorporation of game-centered approaches into your teaching and/or coaching?
How can practitioners communicate globally ideas about GCA in PE and Sport?
A key issue identified for me at the TGfU seminar here in A Coruna is the need to communicate ideas about Game Centered Approaches (GCA) to teaching games across different languages. One way is to share ideas like the one about using visuals.
What other ideas can people suggest?
How can we develop a way of categorizing and sharing practical and theoretical ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)