Learning informally to use teaching games for understanding

Abstract

This article reports on a study of one recently qualified teacher’s employment of the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) model in a UK secondary school. The study sought to examine how the teacher, not formally educated in its use, delivered TGfU and to identify those factors that led to this interpretation of the model. Occupational socialization was used to explore how childhood experiences of physical education (PE) and sport, higher education and the workplace influenced the experience of learning informally to use the model. Qualitative data are reported from interviews, lesson observations and teacher documentary evidence. Findings illustrated that informal learning during organizational socialization had developed the teacher’s use of TGfU. However, a partial understanding of the tactical problem-solving nature of games and issues around the use of social constructivist learning strategies impeded effective use of the model. It is recommended that teachers attempting to learn informally how to use TGfU effectively receive sustained external expertise and continuing support from colleagues.

Keywords

Informal learning recently qualified teacher socialization teaching games for understanding

Introduction

This article attempts to identify those factors that facilitate or inhibit informal learning of TGfU (Teaching Games for Understanding) (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) from the perspective of a recently qualified teacher. Research examining what influences how a model is learned, perceived and taught by teachers provides valuable findings for those attempting to improve professional development opportunities for those working in schools (McMahon and MacPhail, 2007). A number of studies have been conducted examining (student) teachers’ understanding and application of other instructional models, most notably Sport Education (Curtner-Smith, Hastie and Kinchin, 2008; Gurvitch, Lund and Metzler, 2008; Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009). However, teachers’ implementation and those factors influencing the implementation of different instructional models in PE are not necessarily congruent (McCaughtry et al., 2004). McMahon and MacPhail (2007) have suggested a need for research directly related to the experience of learning and utilizing specific instructional models. For this reason, this study attempted to discover how a teacher, not formally educated in the use of TGfU, delivered this instructional model and to identify those factors that led to this interpretation of the model.

Teaching games for understanding

The purposes of TGfU are to develop students’ tactical awareness and decision-making within the framework of modified games (Allison and Thorpe, 1997). Like the traditional games model, correct execution of techniques can be taught but in the TGfU model this is preceded by an emphasis upon what techniques to use and when and where to use them. Students should be encouraged to execute overarching strategies or principles of play such as the use of depth in a net game like badminton. Tactical problems such as setting up an attack by creating space on the opponent’s side of the net are overcome by effective on and/or off-the-ball skills (Ward and Griggs 2011). Teachers should be encouraged to introduce secondary rules to emphasize such tactical problems. For example, a player cannot win the rally until the opponent has been forced into the rear of the court. Such modification−exaggeration would emphasize the principle of depth and the tactical problem of attacking space at the front and rear of the badminton court. Modifications to the equipment, playing area and number of players should also be made to suit the students’ sizes, ages and abilities while retaining the tactical intricacies of the adult game (Thorpe, Bunker and Almond, 1984). Badminton could be played with a smaller racquet with a slower shuttlecock on a smaller court thereby allowing students to show and develop their tactical understanding.

The original TGfU model (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982) has been subsequently developed by a number of authors (Grehaigne and Godbout, 1995; Holt, Stream and Bengoechea, 2002; Kirk and MacPhail, 2002, 2009; Light and Fawns, 2003). It has been a catalyst for similar models such as Play Practice (Launder, 2001), Game Sense (Light, 2004) and the Tactical Games Model (Griffin and Sheehy, 2004) while others have discussed integrating TGfU and its variants with other instructional models (Casey, 2010; Collier, 2005; Dyson, 2005). What is evident in all subsequent developments of the original model is that students are placed in problem-solving situations where their decision-making is of critical importance and skill development occurs within its context (Griffin and Sheehy, 2004). In short, TGfU and its variants consist of ‘a learner-and game-centred approach to sport-related games learning with strong ties to a constructivist approach to learning’ (Griffin and Patton, 2005: 1).

Issues when using teaching games for understanding

A growing body of literature indicates there are four fundamental issues around learning to implement TGfU (O’Leary, 2012). Clarifying the relationship between skills, tactics and games has proved to be problematic. PE teachers’ limited content knowledge of games has been shown to be a stumbling block and they have found their role in encouraging students’ thinking challenging. Teachers have also voiced their concerns around behaviour management and control of the class.

The connection between skills and tactics has proved challenging. Barrett and Turner (2000) examined how an experienced female PE teacher linked skills and tactics together teaching STXBALL (a version of lacrosse) to a grade six class. They discovered in her first lesson the teacher could not move between the game and skill teaching. Instead she taught the whole skill and broke it down into smaller parts as typically seen when utilising the technical model. She found it difficult to teach a skill the students needed as a result of an observed weakness in the initial game. While she could competently teach technically correct skills, she found it problematic to observe and teach tactical aspects of the game. Teachers’ trepidation regarding the relationship between skills, tactics and the use of mini-games when using TGfU has been evident for over 25 years (Brooker et al., 2000; Bunker and Thorpe, 1986a; Butler, 1996; Rossi et al., 2007; Rovegno, 1998). Teachers appear to want to teach what they know best, which, in most cases, is the basic skills of games.

A lack of content knowledge results in additional problems in learning to use TGfU. Brooker et al. (2000) examined one Australian teacher’s implementation of the model teaching basketball. The teacher felt she had a limited conceptual understanding of the sport having only completed a Level 1 coaching award. As a result she found the observation of game play extremely difficult. This made asking appropriate open-ended questions ‘on the spot’ problematic. Hastie and Curtner-Smith (2006) found that even an experienced teacher found it difficult to ask the ‘next’ question when teaching 29 sixth grade students when using a Sport Education−TGfU hybrid unit. TGfU requires teachers to ‘think on their feet’, necessitating very good teacher content knowledge to ask relevant open-ended questions.

For many teachers the use of open-ended questions encouraging independent thought flies in the face of conventional notions of what it is to be a teacher. Butler (1996) discovered that experienced teachers using TGfU often believed that the purpose of teaching is to transmit knowledge to students to enable them to learn it. She reported that experienced teachers thought the model was only suitable for emotionally mature or highly motivated students. The teachers believed that many students were not capable of creative thought and that TGfU emphasized the cognitive at the expense of the physical. The teachers also identified that facilitating student learning by on-the-spot observation skills and open-ended questions resulted in them feeling a loss of control, and student behaviour often became problematic.

Despite issues around learning to implement TGfU, the social resolution of tactical problems, acquisition of applicable skills and playing for the game’s sake provide sound educative reasons for its adoption. It would appear sensible to examine teachers’ engagement with the model and how it is absorbed into the practice of games teaching, given that the terms ‘common practice’ and ‘TGfU’ uttered in the same breadth remain a pipe dream on the playing fields and sports halls the length and breadth of the UK’ (Jones and Cope, 2011: 137). In contrast to previous studies (Gurvitch and Metzler, 2008; Li and Cruz, 2008; Light and Butler, 2005), this study examines one recently qualified teacher’s implementation of TGfU in the UK who had not been formally educated in its use. Instead the teacher had to rely on informal school-based professional development. The relevance of such research is two-fold. Firstly, the majority UK PE teachers who might consider using TGfU have also not been formally instructed in its use (Capel, 2007). Secondly, current financial restraints as a result of the recession are resulting in reductions in opportunities for teachers to attend external professional development courses (Livingston, 2012). Instead, teachers are increasingly reliant on informal opportunities in-school to learn through sharing expertise and ideas with their colleagues (Armour and Yelling, 2007; Livingston, 2012). Occupational socialization (Lawson, 1986) was used to examine how the influence of the workplace, the impact of higher education, and childhood observations and experiences of PE and sport impacted on the experience of learning informally to teach use TGfU.

Occupational socialization

The study used the occupational socialization framework to understand how the recently qualified teacher’s learning of TGfU was influenced by three types of socialization: acculturation, professional socialization and organizational socialization. Occupational socialization in PE ‘includes all of the kinds of socialization that initially influence persons to enter the field of physical education and that later are responsible for their perceptions and actions as teacher educators and teachers’ (Lawson, 1986: 107).

‘Acculturation’ refers to childhood observations and experiences of PE and sport, nurtured by family, teachers and sport coaches amongst others. This ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975) appears to influence prospective PE teachers in two ways. Firstly, an opportunity to observe teachers plying their trade alludes to the attributes, skills and responsibilities required of teachers (Schempp, 1989). Secondly, it develops an attraction to physical activity and sport in particular (Capel, 2007; Stidder and Hayes, 2006). Its products become the dominant rules, meanings and actions that are so taken for granted as to be called ‘common sense’. Values such as the belief that competition in life is inherently good and it is the teacher’s role to tell students what to do are two such examples. While one might refuse to accept such values, it is almost impossible to escape knowledge of such dominant meanings (Lortie, 1975).

In contrast ‘professional socialization’ refers to the process by which would-be PE teachers acquire the values, knowledge and skills deemed necessary by higher education institutions to teach the subject. The likely impact of university and teacher training programmes on student teachers appear minimal given they can enter higher education with formed perceptions of themselves as teachers, the technical skills and conceptions required to teach (Curtner-Smith, Hastie and Kinchin, 2008; Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009). The power of acculturation may be even stronger as an influx of what Zeichner and Gore (1990) call ‘non-traditional’ students enter higher education. Traditional students would enter university with either limited or no work-related experience. However, many students are now entering programmes having completed work experience in schools. This is particularly evident in the UK given the loopholes that now enable unqualified staff to teach and coach in schools (Griggs, 2010). This has the potential to strengthen acculturation and have a negative impact on the influence of professional socialization.

‘Organizational socialization’ refers to the influence of the workplace and the process by which one learns a specific organizational role (Van Maanen and Schein, 1979). In learning the knowledge and skills of PE valued by the school, it has been suggested that this maintains a custodial or traditional ideology (Lawson, 1983). The potential factors underpinning the maintenance of such an ideology appear to be the teacher’s own expertise in particular activities or sports, the expectations of colleagues (including mentors for recently qualified staff) and the school students (Green, 1998).

Occupational socialization encourages us to explore how the recently qualified teacher’s PE and sporting experiences as a child, higher education/teacher training and the influence of the workplace impacted on learning to use the TGfU model. This study hopes to contribute to previous studies on how teachers learn to use TGfU and identify what support might be required for teachers wishing to, or already utilizing, this instructional model.

The research site

The Celtic Academy (a pseudonym), the case study site, is a Department for Education (DfE)-funded comprehensive specialist Sports, Mathematics and Computing College situated in the West Midlands, UK. The school population is 1460. The majority of the students are White-British (68.3%); 21.7% are eligible for free school meals, 22.5% have Special Educational Needs (SEN) and 21.7% do not have English as their first language. PE is a compulsory subject in the school, taught to boys and girls by one department of 14 teachers. The departmental programme of study was devised to meet the requirements of the National Curriculum for Physical Education (NCPE) (QCA, 2007a, 2007b). The teacher is expected to utilize TGfU in achieving the strategic requirements and adaptation of actions necessary to outwit opponents. Teachers are not provided with external TGfU training. They are supported by Bill (a pseudonym) (Head of PE), who had attended an external professional TGfU course. Newly recruited teachers are required to observe Bill using the model and collaboratively teach games with him. They are also expected to learn informally from observing, team-teaching and talking to their colleagues. The study was conducted over a four-month period by the author. The participating teacher suggested that a year seven boys class (ages 11−12) being taught badminton should be observed for data collection purposes.

The participant’s biography

Simon (a pseudonym), the participating teacher, was raised in the town of Walsall, West Midlands, UK. At the time the study began he was 25 years of age. He did not consider his family to be particularly active. In contrast, he played sport from an early age. Simon remembered primary school PE lessons consisting largely of outdoor education and cross-country running. He represented the school in cross-country running, football and rounders. During his primary years he began to play football for a voluntary club; something he still does to this day. Simon recalls secondary school PE as being ‘very much games-based and becoming recreational’ (II) (initial interview) as he got older. Although he represented the school in basketball, cricket and football he was keen to emphasize that he ‘wasn’t really any good but… I was always keen’ (II).

During his first year at university Simon was enrolled on a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) (BA Hons) Sports Studies degree. He decided to switch to a BA (Hons) PE degree because he had enjoyed PE at school and because of the practical nature of the degree. He commented that during the PE degree he was taught to teach games using the technical approach emphasizing ‘skill development in its simplest form, progression… and then into a fully competitive situation’ (FI) (final interview). Prior to arriving at his current school, Simon’s ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975) of what constitutes good pedagogical practice had not been radically changed by his university studies. He had a ‘sporting perspective’ focusing on the development of physical skills (Evans, 1992). Following his undergraduate studies Simon completed a Graduate Teacher Programme at the Celtic Academy. He has been teaching here as a qualified member of staff for two years. He acknowledged his understanding and use of TGfU had been largely influenced by Bill.

The ethical issues of deception, consent, privacy, disclosure and accuracy were addressed by adopting the BERA (British Educational Research Association) guidelines (2011). The issue of accuracy will be considered when discussing data collection and analysis. The aims, methods and intended uses of the possible data obtained were made clear to the teacher. The teacher was informed that his participation in the study was voluntary and all data would be treated as strictly confidential. He was informed that the research would be made available to him at the conclusion of the study and findings may be published in academic papers and presented at educational conferences. Throughout dissemination of the study his entitlement to privacy and rights to confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed. These five ethical issues were incorporated into an informed consent form which was signed by the participating teacher.

Data collection and analysis

A case study research design (Stake, 2000) was adopted to provide an in-depth interpretation of the recently qualified teacher’s experience of learning to teach TGfU. Studying a teacher in their real-life context (Gratton and Jones, 2004) has the potential to provide multiple sources of information rich in context (Creswell, 1998). The data collection methods utilized were interviewing, observations and documentary evidence.

Interviews

Interviews have been used in identifying interpretation and use of the TGfU model by student teachers (Li and Cruz, 2008; Light and Butler, 2005; Lund, Gurvitch and Metzler, 2008). Initial, stimulated recall and final interviews were undertaken with the teacher. All three interviews were semi-structured in nature providing an opportunity to gain in-depth responses and allow the teacher to recreate their experiences. The initial interview (II) took place prior to lesson observations and explored the specifics of the teacher’s acculturation, professional and organizational socialization. A stimulated recall interview (SRI) was used, which consisted of interviewing the teacher while playing them an audio-visual recording of one of their lessons (Dempsey, 2010). Camera angles and views were determined by the author. The purpose of SRI was to help the teachers recall events within their lesson with accuracy by presenting them with relevant cues or questions from that event (Allison, 1990). Such a memory prosthesis would move the teacher beyond how they might or should act in a given situation to how they did act and why (emphasis added). The final interview (FI) took place after lesson observations had been completed. The broad categories of questions examined the teacher’s use of TGfU, influences they felt impacted on their use of the model and improvements that could be made in learning to use the model.

Observations

The purposes of lesson observations (LO) and subsequent field notes were to allow the researcher to ‘experience’ the lessons (Cohen, Manion and Morrison, 2007) and compare what the teacher said they did in the various interviews with what actually took place. Ten unstructured observations were completed. Although unstructured in nature, the observations were loosely based around Metzler’s (2005) teacher and student benchmarks. The former include the lesson beginning with a game to develop game appreciation; the use of a principle of play and tactical problem to organize learning tasks, and relevant on- and off-the-ball techniques and skills being taught. The latter include students solving tactical problems and having the opportunity to reflect when attempting to answer open-ended questions. Such benchmarks verify that the instructional model has been implemented with an acceptable degree of faithfulness in terms of lesson structure and pedagogical principles.

Documentary evidence

Documentation took the form of a self-reflective journal (SRJ) and lesson planner (LP). These two methods would provide additional data in illuminating issues around use of the instructional model and provide further context, background and understanding (Alaszewski, 2006). They would also be used to support, contextualize and verify other forms of data. The self-reflective journal was completed voluntarily by the teacher. Their use has become increasingly popular amongst researchers examining the influence of occupational socialization upon teachers’ use of instructional models (Li and Cruz, 2008; Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009; Zmudy, Curtner-Smith and Steffen, 2009). The journals were employed to identify what was taught, how it was taught and why it was taught. The teacher was asked to report on satisfying and dissatisfying experiences, difficulties encountered and anything they found significant during the lessons. Lesson planners were a requirement of the PE department to aid lesson preparation and evaluation throughout the unit of work. They were completed by the teacher after each lesson. Details required included lesson objectives, tasks set and evidence of learning outcomes being achieved.

Data from the various sources was analyzed using a general inductive approach (Thomas, 2006). Such an approach may be defined as a process of ‘making sense of field data’ (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 202). Following a read-through of all data sources, specific units of text were identified. These were labelled to create initial categories. To reduce overlap and redundancy among categories, these were reduced in number until only summary categories or themes remained (Creswell, 1998; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). This was completed firstly, regarding how the teacher practiced TGfU and secondly, how their occupational socialization had influenced these practices.

To improve the credibility of the data collected the research process was made transparent to the participating teacher at the outset of the study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Cross-checking the accuracy of the data from the different data collection techniques was completed (Markula and Silk, 2011). Member checks asking the participant to verify the accuracy of the data was employed (Patton, 1990). Following the advice of Lincoln and Guba (1985) a competent qualitative researcher was asked to review the data and subsequent analysis of it. Finally, an audit trail recorded how much trust and rapport were achieved, together with mistakes, misconceptions and surprises (Altheide and Johnson, 1994). It also included research intentions, raw data and data analysis.

Results

Interpretation and delivery of teaching games for understanding

Data indicated that Simon employed some of Metzler’s (2005) benchmarks to a greater or lesser extent within the unit of work. Most lessons included an initial game followed by technical practice and a final game. While some of the lessons were game-centred, others were dominated by technique practices. The initial game often lacked a tactical focus. The teacher benchmark of providing a high rate of tactical feedback during games was limited throughout the unit despite Simon wanting the students to develop tactical understanding. He predominantly encouraged behaviourist learning but social constructivist approaches to learning such as the use of open-ended questioning and student discussion were evident. Inductive analysis indicated there were three overriding themes from his interpretation and delivery of TGfU: the use of decontextualized technique practices; an apparent emphasis on tactical understanding; and a reluctance to fully embrace and utilize social constructivist learning approaches.

The use of decontextualized technique practices

Despite commenting that ‘the actual correct technical model of the skill is no longer that important to me’ (FI), lesson observations indicated that Simon spent a considerable amount of time teaching techniques divorced from the game context. This was surprising since he expressed the view after lesson one that he was pleased and surprised at the very good playing ability of the group. This apparent contradiction was seen in three guises. The technique practices were either not relevant to the lesson objectives consisting of familiarization practices such as repeatedly hitting the shuttle into the air; not learner-centred or aligned to the tactical learning objective (Metzler, 2005). In the first example, the lesson objectives for lesson one were ‘develop an understanding of width and depth’ and ‘hit the shuttle with reasonable consistency on both sides of the body and both sides of the racquet’ (LO 1). The class were asked to hit the shuttle into the air 10 times. This was extended to a maximum of 30 hits and then made more difficult still by moving the racquet around one leg before hitting the shuttle again. While these familiarization practices may have aided manipulation of the racquet and shuttle they did not relate to the lesson objectives or assist students’ tactical understanding.

Secondly, the technique practices were not always learner-centred. For example, in lessons seven and eight the class were attempting to perform the smash. In the first of these lessons they were shown a picture of a professional player executing a smash whilst jumping in the air. Simon stressed the need to jump when teaching this advanced technique. What the students actually required was instruction in throwing technique, basic overhead hitting and getting the feet behind the shuttle as it drops to encourage a downward trajectory of the shuttle. Simon was aware that such technique practices were largely inefficient stating ‘students struggled to get shuttle to the back of the court’ (SRJ 3) and ‘students were struggling to execute the smash effectively’ (LP 8). Despite such concerns, he continued to employ such technique practices.

Thirdly, there were occasions when techniques were taught in relation to the tactical lesson objectives. For example, in lesson two students practised the serve into a hoop and then into the rear two lines of the court. These practices were appropriate given that the tactical learning objective for the lesson was to ‘be able to outwit an opponent using the serve’ (LO 2). The techniques practised underpinned the tactical lesson objective.

An apparent emphasis on tactical understanding

Simon felt tactical understanding was important. All 10 lessons included learning objectives that had a tactical focus. He commented that ‘as long as they have some tactical understanding of what they’re trying to do, then I’m happy’ (FI). Identifying the successes of the unit he wrote ‘students made very good progress in both their knowledge and understanding of how to outwit opponents in badminton’ (LP). However, the opening game did not always set the scene for the development of tactical awareness and decision-making. Most initial games consisted of the students simply playing a game. During the SRI Simon commented ‘at no point did I tell them, go away and do this. In effect, I gave them minimal instruction’. Even when the initial game was modified in some way there were issues with developing tactical understanding. Lesson six perfectly illustrated these issues. The appropriate (if somewhat general) learning objectives were ‘start with a good serve; hit the shuttle into spaces and move my opponent out of position’ (LO 6). The initial game used a half court that was narrow and long and students could only score a point by the shuttle hitting the ground in front of the service line or behind cones at the rear of the court. Although the principle of depth was being taught, this was never mentioned to the class. The students were never asked to consider why it is important to hit the shuttle to the front or back of the court. Simon showed a limited understanding of the problem-solving nature of games that participants attempt to overcome to prove ascendancy (Almond, 1986b). The class were not asked to solve a tactical problem and explore the different ways this might be achieved. Instead the emphasis was performance-orientated. Cognitive learning was largely ignored. Simon was encouraging the boys to hit the shuttle long or short but they did not necessarily know why.

Despite a lack of clarity in developing tactical understanding, Simon did modify many of the games played throughout the unit of work to allow the students to demonstrate their use of tactics. Recognizing they were struggling to hit the shuttle to the rear of the court during the initial game in lesson three, Simon changed the equipment to suit the ‘children’s size, age, and ability’ (Thorpe, Bunker and Almond, 1984: 25). He insisted they throw a larger and heavier shuttle. The students could throw further than they could hit and the heavier shuttle also travelled further. Such examples made the game developmentally appropriate given all the class now had the opportunity to place the shuttle into space thereby showing tactical understanding.

A reluctance to use social constructivist learning approaches

Simon used a mixture of behaviourist and social constructivist learning approaches throughout the unit. However, in accordance with most other PE teachers, the predominant strategies were behaviourist in nature (Butler, 2005, 2006; Fernandez-Balboa, 2009; Kirk, 2010). This transmission approach utilizing reproductive teaching styles is not totally surprising since he spent much of the unit of work teaching decontextualized techniques. Such teaching styles have been shown to be the most effective when teaching techniques (Goldberger and Gerney, 1990). When questions were posed to the class the approach was predominantly teacher-led and the students were given few opportunities to reflect or discuss their possible replies. However, there were occasions when Simon did employ social constructivist approaches to learning.

Simon regularly attempted to start each lesson by activating the students’ prior knowledge to ensure learning was relevant and authentic to the class. Questions such as ‘what do you know about badminton?’ (LO 1) and ‘what did we do on Monday (LO 2)?’ were typical throughout the 10 lessons. Watts and Bentley (1991) have argued that such one-liners show constructivist intent, attempting to ‘start where the learner is at’. This starting point was clearly a notional ‘norm’ of class achievement, ignoring individual differences and is seen as an effective way of dealing with large group sizes. To improve authenticity Simon encouraged the students to attend the school badminton club and, recognizing limited knowledge of badminton among the class, Simon compared using the serve to outwit the opponent to taking a penalty in soccer, stating ‘you would not put the ball where the goalkeeper is standing’ (LO 2).

Simon complemented the activation of the students’ prior knowledge with the use of problem-solving, open-ended questions, and social discussion. In lesson seven he gave six boys on each of the four badminton courts one laminated plain sheet of paper and a pen and asked them to plan in their group where they might play their next shot dependent on the position of the opponent. He gave the students three minutes to discuss their answers and visited each group listening to their replies and encouraging additional responses. However, the students’ discussion about where to play the shuttle was not used in the game situation since the remainder of the lesson became technique-focused. In lesson nine the boys had to construct their own initial game using two shuttles. The purpose of this game was not obvious or told to the class. In both of the above examples the class was set a problem to solve as a result of an open-ended question. Social discussion ensued but the information generated was not used to inform game play.

Despite issues around his use of social constructivist strategies Simon did see value in such learning approaches. Following the task described above in lesson seven he commented:

What I thought was if they write it down and have a couple of minutes to think about it in a calm situation, they might be able to get more from it. They might hopefully come up with more ideas than they would do if they’d just had 30 seconds of the session to think about it. That’s the whole idea of giving thinking time was they might come up with some more in-depth answers and learn from each other as well. (SRI)

Although Simon saw value in such strategies he was not comfortable using them. On providing students with time to reflect and socially discuss, he commented ‘Oh, I hate doing things like that. I do it. To say I hate it is wrong. I can see it has its place’ (SRI). Given their prominence throughout the 10 lessons, he clearly preferred using behaviourist learning strategies and the accompanying transmission approach to teaching.

Factors influencing interpretation and delivery of Teaching Games for Understanding

Despite having only taught at the Celtic Academy as a qualified teacher for two years, the organizational stage had a significant influence on Simon’s understanding and use of TGfU. This is not surprising since he had not encountered the instructional model as a school student or during his undergraduate studies. He first encountered TGfU during his Graduate Teacher Programme at the Celtic Academy. The use of social constructivist learning strategies, modification of games, an apparent tactical focus and (limited) tactical feedback have been influenced by observation, team-teaching and discussion with current colleagues. The recurring emphasis upon technique practices appears to have been acquired from his PE teachers and reinforced during his university PE course. Analysis of the data suggests two themes influenced Simon’s interpretation and delivery of TGfU: the increasing influence of current colleagues and the desire for good student behaviour.

The increasing influence of current colleagues

Simon commented that ‘talking to Bill and some of the other PE teachers’ made him believe that acquiring the correct technique was not overly important (FI). Nonetheless, he spent considerable time teaching decontextualized techniques. This is not unexpected having only worked at the Celtic Academy for two years. Simon did acknowledge in ‘teaching the techniques he wanted them to do it properly’ and that it was necessary to ‘get the techniques in place and we can start to look at the tactics afterwards’ (SRI). Simon felt this was required particularly with younger students, commenting ‘the older the kids… the more they’re able to demonstrate the techniques, maybe not the understanding, whereas I think lower down the school they still need to develop their techniques first and then their understanding’ (FI). These comments strongly hint at an allegiance to the technical model (Metzler, 2005). Simon stated his own PE teachers emphasized ‘how we perform the skills, not the reasons as to why or when or at what point during the game we use the skills’ (II). While his current colleagues may be encouraging him to focus on areas other than technical acquisition, Simon’s acculturation experiences appear to support Lortie’s (1975) view that the strongest perceptions formed during the apprenticeship of observation tend to be self-perpetuating and resistant to change.

However, it is apparent that Simon’s current colleagues had begun to influence other aspects of his use of TGfU. Opportunities for social discussion appear to have been learned within the PE department with Simon stating ‘in terms of giving kids thinking time, that’s come from being here and just observing good practice’ (SRI). His peers also appear to have inadvertently encouraged Simon to offer minimal tactical feedback and often allow the students to play games without a specific (tactical) focus:

I just think observing other teachers, picking up, formally and informally watching other people like Bill. He says kids learn to skateboard by falling off and by practising. Nobody ever sits them down to teach them. Nobody ever does that, they learn by falling off and through play if you like. (FI)

The desire for good student behaviour

During the SRI Simon commented that student ‘discipline was very important to him’, adding ‘I always have a philosophy, that the stricter you are in year seven, the easier your life becomes as they go through the school’. He believed the best approach to ensuring good behaviour was to ensure the students were physically active as much as possible:

I think trying to keep kids as active as possible is a great way to minimize disruption. So I think the fact that in the large majority of my lessons, I don’t have many behavioural issues, or many major ones, anyway, it’s because generally, they’re physically engaged in what they’re doing. (FI)

It was evident that the emphasis upon physical activity influenced the learning approach adopted. Simon felt uncomfortable with the class involved in reflective and socially interactive tasks. In lesson seven, having given the boys three minutes to discuss a problem, he suddenly reduced the time to two minutes. On being asked why, he replied ‘I want to get them back active to the lesson’ (SRI). The emphasis upon physical activity to ensure good behaviour prevented greater use of socially interactive learning. The concern for student control is also likely to reinforce the use of the structured teaching of techniques (Butler, 1996). This was despite the fact that when the boys did engage in discussion in the same lesson, Simon commented ‘it looks as though they’re talking about what they’re doing and when I was listening to the conversations, they were’ (SRI). The desire to ensure good student behaviour appears almost habitual given that Simon recognized their excellent behaviour in the self-reflective journal as early as lesson two. Simon felt he could only give the students more responsibility once he had gained control of the class. A journal entry following lesson four stated ‘students responded well to more responsibility for their learning’ and this was significant because ‘it gave me more confidence to allow them to take control over their learning’. In congruence with previous research findings (Brooker et al., 2000; Gubacs-Collins, 2007; Li and Cruz, 2008), Simon exhibited a lack of confidence and perceived a lack of class control when using social constructivist learning strategies.

The desire for teacher control to ensure good student behaviour appears to have been acquired predominantly during the organizational stage. In his first year as a newly qualified teacher Simon commented that his mentor emphasized ‘making sure the kids are well behaved since that’s what people look at’ (FI). He also felt the nature of the students at the Celtic Academy and its standards encouraged him to ensure students were well behaved, stating that ‘if they don’t conform to our standards in the end, and they’re impacting upon everybody else, they won’t be here any more’ (FI). School policy states students causing concern are rigorously monitored and suitable action is taken including suspension and, if necessary, permanent exclusion.

Discussion

During his two years at the Celtic Academy Simon had observed, planned lessons and team-taught with Bill who had previously attended an externally run TGfU course. Bill expected the PE staff to teach games using TGfU. Simon also observed, team-taught with and informally talked to other staff using the TGfU model. It is evident that such experiences during the organizational stage have encouraged Simon to begin to forgo the traditional approach to games teaching acquired during his acculturation and professional socialization. They appear to have provided him with some understanding of how to apply TGfU encouraging him to modify games, emphasize learning through playing the game, consider students’ tactical understanding and encourage social discussion. However, inconsistent application of these approaches appear to be the result of learning from his colleagues, what Lortie (1975) refers to as piecemeal ‘tricks of the trade’ rather than principles of teaching and learning. For example, Simon was not aware of the unique problem-solving nature of games. As a result, modification–exaggeration using secondary rules to emphasize tactical problems was largely absent. Social constructivist approaches to learning such as the setting of problems, the use of open-ended questioning and social interaction were not effectively employed to improve students’ game performance. This partial application of TGfU was also influenced by Simon’s childhood and higher education experiences.

Lortie (1975) notes that in learning ‘tricks of the trade’ from colleagues, such tricks must still ‘work’ for the teacher concerned and they are likely to be aligned with their own personal methods acquired from past experiences. Simon, as a result of acculturation and professional socialization still believed it was necessary that technique acquisition was a prerequisite for teaching tactical understanding. The use of decontextualized technique practices is also likely to aid his class discipline (Butler, 2005). The desire for good student behaviour stemming from the influence of his mentor as a student teacher, resulted in Simon attempting to ensure the class was physically active as much as possible. He felt that the use of social constructivist learning strategies prevented students being physically active and this reinforced his use of reproductive teaching styles and behaviourist learning approaches (Mosston and Ashworth, 2002). The approaches to teaching and learning used by Simon provide additional evidence in support of scholars whose research indicates that teachers feel that a loss of control and student management becomes a serious issue when attempting to use social constructivist approaches to teaching games (Brooker et al., 2000; Capel, 2007; Green, 2008; Li and Cruz, 2008).

If informal learning from colleagues can lead to an incomplete application of the model, common sense and empirical research findings suggest lectures supported with experience of teaching the model during professional socialization would help in this regard (Li and Cruz, 2008; Lund, Gurvitch and Metzler, 2008). Previous research has clearly documented the issue of the separation between theory and practice: the gap between learning content in a university and then attempting to apply it in a school environment (Hopper and Sanford, 2008; Korthagen, Loughran and Russell, 2006). Indeed, it has been suggested that the transfer from theory to practice in schools is minimal and has largely failed to change pedagogical practices in any significant way (Korthagen, Loughran and Russell, 2006). While a number of PE degree courses in the UK do potentially provide opportunities for students to integrate theoretical content with teaching experiences, it must be remembered that Simon, in common with the majority of PE teachers, have not experienced these opportunities (Capel, 2007).

External expertise for such teachers appears warranted. The research of Lund, Gurvitch and Metzler (2008) reinforces this point. PE teachers who completed university-led formal training in the use of various instructional models in their own schools tended to use such models more effectively, employing a greater number of teacher and student benchmarks than those teachers who had not been educated in their use.

This research study indicates that PE teachers may require two specific areas of support. Firstly, the tactical problem-solving nature of games needs to be highlighted. Despite the unique opportunity to solve tactical problems and the NCPE (QCA, 2007a, 2007b) requirement that games should be based around outwitting opponents, this study suggests that an over-reliance on technique-orientated practices found 27 years earlier in research conducted by Bunker and Thorpe (1986a) still remains. The participant in this study needed to understand that the game should be central to the lesson and emphasis should be placed on solving tactical problems, recognizing relevant game cues such as the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses (Bunker and Thorpe, 1982, 1986b). Techniques should not be at the heart of a TGfU lesson and when taught should be learner-centred and fulfil the requirements of the game.

Secondly, the use of social constructivist learning strategies to improve game performance while ensuring appropriate student behaviour needs to be addressed. Teachers should be made aware that the use of open-ended questioning and social discussion should be based around solving the tactical problem set and the on- and off-the-ball skills required to solve the problem. They also need to be informed that their role is that of a learning guide rather than an instructor (Adams, 2006). This involves a transfer of power from the teacher to their students and recognizing that risk-taking and wrong answers are an inevitable consequence of such a paradigm shift (Azzarito and Ennis, 2003; Kroll, 2004). Rovegno and Dolly (2006) have highlighted that teachers should understand that social constructivism does not provide a simple set of rules for pedagogical practice but it does provide a framework to consider effective practice. Such changes are likely to rob teachers of their previous socialization experiences and as result they may perceive themselves as less effective while learning such strategies. Indeed, it may make them feel like beginner teachers again (Casey, 2014). Considerable time would be required for even a willing teacher to adjust to the new requirements. Continuing Professional Development (CPD) has been suggested to allow teachers to grow accustomed to such changes (Adams, 2006; Capel, 2000; Chen, 2002; Chen and Rovegno, 2000).

However, CPD is not likely to be a panacea for all teachers. Undergraduate classes and opportunities to practise the use of TGfU have been shown to still produce students with incomplete knowledge of the model (Dudley and Baxter, 2009). Nonetheless, CPD based on understanding the nature of games and the use of social constructivist strategies are likely to help teachers to move towards a fuller use of TGfU. It should be emphasized that these and other aspects of effective TGfU teaching and learning such as content knowledge are interdependent. In other words, they are all required if teachers are to use the model effectively (O’Leary, 2012). A lack of understanding in one area is likely to impact on the other areas, resulting in a distorted application of the model. Research based around the use of TGfU and other innovative instructional models such as Sport Education indicate that universities are probably in the best place to offer guidance, given they are based in local communities and can conduct research that will provide evidence of what works (Kirk, 2012). Three forms of support are required. Firstly, university researchers can provide knowledge of the model to help teachers overcome initial problems using TGfU (Brooker et al., 2000). Secondly, given the cost and ineffective nature of traditional CPD provision (Armour and Yelling, 2007), university staff can continue to support teachers in transferring theory into their own classrooms (McMahon and MacPhail, 2007; Stran and Curtner-Smith, 2009). Learning and reflecting on how to use TGfU in a compatible environment based on their own students’ needs with university support would improve the effectiveness of the model’s adoption (Armour and Yelling, 2007; Casey, 2014; Hopper and Sanford, 2008; Korthagen, Loughran and Russell, 2006). A lack of such sustained external support has the potential to encourage ineffective informal learning amongst teachers (Wenger, 1998). Thirdly, recognizing that university support cannot continue indefinitely, Butler’s (1996) suggestion that teachers also work alongside, and receive support from a ‘buddy’ would aid further continuous experimentation and development of the model.

The findings of the present study recognize the socialization of PE teachers is a lifelong process (Lawson, 1986). In contrast to the seminal research of Lortie (1975) and Schempp (1989) in the USA, this research has shown that acculturation is not always resistant to change. Although acting as an evaluation screen in some respects, the progress Simon made in adopting many aspects of TGfU in a relatively short space of time indicates that the ‘apprenticeship of observation’ (Lortie, 1975) need not be self-perpetuating. Factors within organizational socialization were able to partially negate traditional aspects of acculturation and professional socialization, supporting Lawson’s (1986) assumption that operations or practices in PE departments are institutionalized. The innovative organizational socialization of his colleagues in adopting TGfU resulted in many of Simon’s traditional methods to games teaching being partially ‘washed out’.

Conclusion

This study sought to identify those factors that facilitate or inhibit learning to use the TGfU model from the perspective of a recently qualified teacher. This study has illustrated that informal learning during organizational socialization can develop teachers’ use of TGfU but a partial understanding of the tactical problem-solving nature of games and issues around social constructivist learning approaches can impede effective use of the model. The fact that school-based professional development can lead to the perpetuation of traditional practices (Keay, 2005) or ineffective practice (Wenger, 1998) suggests external support is warranted. However, traditional forms of CPD provision such as off-school site, one-day courses are expensive and often seen as ineffective in supporting teachers to learn in ways that can improve their practice (Armour, 2010; Casey, 2013). Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2009) have argued that this accepted type of CPD ensures development is forced upon teachers with the assumption that their teaching practices and students’ learning will improve. Such approaches rarely allow teachers to see themselves as learners and reflect upon their own practices (Casey, 2013). The use of ongoing local university expertise with continuing support from colleagues would provide site-specific knowledge and teachers would see the potential student learning it provides (Butler, 1996; Kirk, 2012).

This study has been carried out on a small scale and a relatively short timescale (four months). The research was experimental in nature and the findings are based on the experiences of one recently qualified PE teacher. These limiting factors indicate care should be taken in drawing conclusions from the study. In recognizing these limitations these findings still have significant implications for those teachers attempting to learn how to use TGfU and for those attempting to help teachers with this task. Given the majority of teachers have yet to use this instructional model in the UK (Jones and Cope, 2011), further research examining how occupational socialization influences different groups of teachers’ use of TGfU and other tactically based games models might help answer Almond’s (1986a) still pertinent question of how they might be successfully absorbed into the culture of teaching.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Adams

(2006) Exploring social constructivism: Theories and practicalities. Education 3-13 34 (3): 243–257.

Alaszewski

(2006) Using Diaries for Social Research. London: Sage.

Alison

Thorpe

(1997) A comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching games within physical education. A skills approach versus a games for understanding approach. The British Journal of Physical Education 28 (3): 9–13.

Allison

(1990) Classroom teachers' observations of physical education lessons. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 9 (4): 272–283.

Almond

(1986a) Asking teachers to research. In: Thorpe

Bunker

Almond

(eds) Rethinking Games Teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough, pp.35–44.

Almond

(1986b) Primary and secondary rules in games. In: Thorpe

Bunker

Almond

(eds) Rethinking Games Teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough, pp.73–74.

Altheide

Johnson

(1994) Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, pp.485–499.

Armour

(2010) The physical education profession and its professional responsibility… or… why ‘12 weeks paid holiday’ will never be enough. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 15: 1–13.

Armour

Yelling

(2007) Effective professional development for physical education teachers: The role of informal, collaborative learning. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 26: 177–200.

10.

Azzarito

Ennis

(2003) A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist physical education. Sport, Education and Society 8 (2): 179–198.

11.

Barrett

Turner

(2000) Sandy’s challenge: New game, new paradigm <a correspondence>. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 19(2): 162–181.

12.

BERA (British Educational Research Association) (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. Available at: www.bera.ac.uk/files/2011/08/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-2011.pdf (accessed 3 December 2011).

13.

Brooker

Kirk

Braiuka

. (2000) Implementing a game sense approach to teaching junior high school basketball in a naturalistic setting. European Physical Education Review 6 (1): 7–26.

14.

Bunker

Thorpe

(1982) A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Physical Education 18 (1): 5–8.

15.

Bunker

Thorpe

(1986a) Landmarks on our way to ‘teaching for understanding’. In: Thorpe

Bunker

Almond

(eds) Rethinking Games Teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough, pp.5–6.

16.

Bunker

Thorpe

(1986b) The curriculum model. In: Thorpe

Bunker

Almond

(eds) Rethinking Games Teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough, pp.7–10.

17.

Butler

(1996) Teacher responses to teaching games for understanding. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 67 (9): 17–20.

18.

Butler

(2005) TGfU pet-agogy: Old dogs, new tricks and puppy school. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10 (3): 225–240.

19.

Butler

(2006) Curriculum constructions of ability: Enhancing learning through teaching games for understanding (TGfU) as a curriculum model. Sport, Education and Society 11 (3): 243–258.

20.

Capel

(2000) Making change in physical education. In: Capel

Piotrowski

(eds) Issues in Physical Education. London: Routledge/Falmer, pp.221–240.

21.

Capel

(2007) Moving beyond physical education subject knowledge to develop knowledgeable teachers of the subject. Curriculum Journal 18 (4): 493–507.

22.

Casey

(2010) Practitioner research in physical education: Teacher transformation through pedagogical and curricular change. PhD Thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University, UK.

23.

Casey

(2013) Practitioner research: A means of coping with the systemic demands for continual professional development? European Physical Education Review 19 (1): 76–90.

24.

Casey

(2014) Models-based practice: Great white hope or white elephant? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 19 (1): 18–34.

25.

Chen

(2002) Six expert and student teachers’ views and implementation of constructivist teaching using a movement approach to physical education. The Elementary School Journal 102 (3): 255–272.

26.

Chen

Rovegno

(2000) Examination of expert and novice teachers’ constructivist-oriented teaching practices using a movement approach to elementary physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71 (4): 357–372.

27.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2007) Research Methods in Education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

28.

Collier

(2005) Integrating tactical games model and sport education. In: Griffin

Butler

(eds) Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, pp.137–148.

29.

Creswell

(1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

30.

Curtner-Smith

Hastie

Kinchin

(2008) Influence of occupational socialization on beginning teachers’ interpretation and delivery of sport education. Sport, Education and Society 13 (1): 97–117.

31.

Dempsey

(2010) Stimulated-recall interviews in ethnography. Qualitative Sociology 33: 349–367.

32.

Dudley

Baxter

(2009) Assessing levels of student understanding in pre-service teachers using a two-cycle SOLO model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 37 (3): 283–293.

33.

Dyson

(2005) Integrating cooperative learning and tactical games models: Focusing on social interactions and decision-making. In: Griffin

Butler

(eds) Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, pp.149–168.

34.

Evans

(1992) A short paper about people, power and educational reform. Authority and representation in ethnographic research subjectivity, ideology and educational reform: The case for physical education. In: Sparkes

(ed.) Research in Physical Education and Sport: Exploring Alternative Visions. London: Falmer Press, pp.231–247.

35.

Fernandez-Balboa

(2009) Bio-pedagogical self-reflection in PETE: Reawakening the ethical conscience and purpose in pedagogy and research. Sport, Education and Society 14 (2): 147–163.

36.

Goldberger

Gerney

(1990) Effects of learner use of practice time on skill acquisition of fifth grade children. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 10 (1): 84–95.

37.

Gratton

Jones

(2004) Research Methods for Sport Studies. London: Routledge.

38.

Green

(1998) Philosophies, ideologies and the practice of physical education. Sport, Education and Society 3 (2): 125–143.

39.

Green

(2008) Understanding Physical Education. London: Sage Publications.

40.

Grehaigne

Godbout

(1995) Tactical knowledge in team sports from a constructivist and cognitivist perspective. Quest 47 (4): 490–505.

41.

Griffin

Patton

(2005) Two decade of teaching games for understanding: looking at the past, present, and future. In: Griffin

Butler

(eds) Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, pp.1–17.

42.

Griffin

Sheehy

(2004) Using the tactical games model to develop problem-solvers in physical education. In: Wright

MacDonald

Burrows

(eds) Critical Inquiry and Problem-Solving in Physical Education. London: Routledge, pp.33–48.

43.

Griggs

(2010) For sale – primary physical education. £20 per hour or nearest offer. Education 3-13 38 (1): 39–46.

44.

Groundwater-Smith

Mockler

(2009) From lesson study to learning study: Side-by-side professional learning in the classroom. In: Campbell

Groundwater-Smith

(eds) Connecting Inquiry and Professional Learning in Education: International Perspectives and Practical Solutions. London: Routledge, pp.166–178.

45.

Gubacs-Collins

(2007) Implementing a tactical approach through action research. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 12 (2): 105–126.

46.

Gurvitch

Lund

Metzler

(2008) Chapter 1: Researching the adoption of model-based instruction: Context and chapter summaries. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27 (4): 449–456.

47.

Hastie

Curtner-Smith

(2006) Influence of a hybrid sport education – teaching games for understanding: Unit on one teacher and his students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 11 (1): 1–27.

48.

Holt

Stream

Garcia Bengoechea

(2002) Expanding the teaching games for understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21(2): 162–176.

49.

Hopper

Sanford

(2008) Using poetic representation to support the development of teachers’ knowledge. Studying Teacher Education 4 (1): 29–45.

50.

Jones

Cope

(2011) Teaching games for understanding: An inclusive teaching model. In: Hardman

Green

(eds) Contemporary Issues in Physical Education: International Perspectives. Maidenhead: Meyer and Meyer Sport (UK) Limited, pp.122–141.

51.

Keay

(2005) Developing the physical education profession: New teachers learning within a subject-based community. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10: 139–157.

52.

Kirk

(2010) Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge.

53.

Kirk

(2012) Physical education futures: Securing the conditions for radical reform. Physical Education Matters 7 (1): 29–31.

54.

Kirk

MacPhail

(2002) Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 21 (2): 177–192.

55.

Kirk

MacPhail

(2009) Teaching games for understanding and situated learning: Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. In: Bailey

Kirk

(eds) The Routledge Physical Education Reader. Oxford: Routledge, pp.269–283.

56.

Korthagen

Loughran

Russell

(2006) Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education 22: 1020–1041.

57.

Kroll

(2004) Constructing constructivism: How student teachers construct ideas of development, knowledge, learning, and teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 10 (2): 199–221.

58.

Launder

(2001) Play Practice: The Games Approach to Teaching and Coaching Sports. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

59.

Lawson

(1983) Toward a model of teacher socialization in physical education: The subjective warrant, recruitment, and teacher education (part 1). Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 2 (3): 3–16.

60.

Lawson

(1986) Occupational socialization and the design of teacher education programs. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 5 (2): 107–116.

61.

Cruz

(2008) Pre-service PE teachers’ occupational socialization experiences on teaching games for understanding. New Horizons in Education 56 (3): 20–30.

62.

Light

(2004) Coaches’ experiences of game sense: Opportunities and challenges. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 9 (2): 115–131.

63.

Light

Butler

(2005) A personal journey: TGfU teacher development in Australia and the USA. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10 (3): 241–254.

64.

Light

Fawns

(2003) Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest 55 (2): 161–176.

65.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. California: Sage.

66.

Livingston

(2012) Approaches to professional development of teachers in Scotland: Pedagogical innovation or financial necessity? Educational Research (54)2: 161–172.

67.

Lortie

(1975) School Teacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.

68.

Lund

Gurvitch

Metzler

(2008) Chapter 7: Influences on cooperating teachers’ adoption of model-based instruction. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27 (4): 457–465.

69.

Markula

Silk

(2011) Qualitative Research for Physical Culture. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

70.

McCaughtry

Sofo

Rovegno

. (2004) Learning to teach sport education: Misunderstandings, pedagogical difficulties and resistance. European Physical Education Review 10 (2): 135–155.

71.

McMahon

MacPhail

(2007) Learning to teach sport education: The experiences of a pre-service teacher. European Physical Education Review 13 (2): 229–246.

72.

Metzler

(2005) Instructional Models for Physical Education. Scottsdale, Arizona: Holcomb Hathway.

73.

Mosston

Ashworth

(2002) Teaching Physical Education. New York: Benjamin Cummings.

74.

O’Leary

(2012) The influence of occupational socialization on physical education teachers’ interpretation and delivery of teaching games for understanding. Ed.D Thesis, University of Bath, UK.

75.

Patton

(1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. California: Sage Publications.

76.

QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) (2007a) Physical Education: Programme of Study for Key Stage 3. London: QCA.

77.

QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) (2007b) Physical Education: Programme of Study for Key Stage 4. London: QCA.

78.

Rossi

Fry

McNeill

. (2007) The games concept approach (GCA) as a mandated practice: Views of Singaporean teachers. Sport, Education and Society 12 (1): 93–111.

79.

Rovegno

(1998) The development of in-service teachers’ knowledge of a constructivist approach to physical education: Teaching beyond activities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69 (2): 147–162.

80.

Rovegno

Dolly

(2006) Constructivist perspectives on learning. In: Kirk

Macdonald

O’Sullivan

(eds) The Handbook of Physical Education. London: Sage Publications, pp.242–261.

81.

Schempp

(1989) Apprenticeship-of-observation and the development of physical education teachers. In: Templin

Schempp

(eds) Socialization into Physical Education: Learning to Teach. Indianapolis: Benchmark Press, pp.13–38.

82.

Stake

(2000) Case studies. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, pp.877–898.

83.

Stidder

Hayes

(2006) A longitudinal study of physical education teachers’ experiences on school placements in the south-east of England (1994–2004). European Physical Education Review 12 (2): 313–333.

84.

Stran

Curtner-Smith

(2009) Influence of occupational socialization on two preservice teachers’ interpretation and delivery of the sport education model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 28 (1): 38–53.

85.

Thomas

(2006) A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation 27 (2): 237–246.

86.

Thorpe

Bunker

Almond

(1984) A change in focus for the teaching of games. In: Pieron

Graham

(eds) Sport Pedagogy. Olympic Scientific Congress Proceedings, Vol. 6. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp.163–169.

87.

Thorpe

Bunker

Almond

(eds). (1986) Rethinking Games Teaching. Loughborough: University of Technology, Loughborough.

88.

Van Maanen

Schein

(1979) Toward a theory of organisational socialization. In: Shaw

(ed) Research into Organisational Behaviour. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, pp.209–261.

89.

Ward

Griggs

(2011) Principles of play: A proposed framework towards a holistic overview of games in primary physical education. Education 3-13 39 (5): 499–516.

90.

Watts

Bentley

(1991) Constructivism in the curriculum. Can we close the gap between the strong theoretical version and the weak version of theory-in-practice? The Curriculum Journal 2(2): 171–182

91.

Wenger

(1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

92.

Zeichner

Gore

(1990) Teacher socialization. In: Houston

(ed) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: MacMillan, pp.329–348.

93.

Zmudy

Curtner-Smith

Steffen

(2009) Influence of occupational socialization on the practices and perspectives of two inexperienced adventure educators. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning 9 (2): 115–134.