Abstract
Despite the advent of game-centred approaches (GCAs) to teaching sport games (e.g. teaching games for understanding (TGfU)), traditional direct instruction approaches remain prevalent in physical education. Moreover, the latter have tended to produce high levels of student inactivity. What remains unclear is whether and how much GCAs aid in students reaching the UK and USA recommendation of 50% of lesson time being spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Participants for this study were 85 students (41 girls) from three separate physical education classes (n = 23, n = 26, and n = 36) at one middle school in the western United States. A licensed teacher/soccer coach with expertise in GCAs taught units of soccer (n = 8 lessons per class; Mlength = 34 minutes 43 secsonds; SD = 3.13). Data on students’ physical activity levels and lesson context were collected using the system for observing fitness instruction time. Teacher behaviour data were collected using the West Virginia teaching evaluation system. Data were analysed using standardized protocols from each instrument. GCA-focused soccer units resulted in students accumulating recommended MVPA levels in physical education, suggesting that skill/game learning goals and public health goals are two sides of the same coin and need not be mutually exclusive when a teacher employs a GCA.
Introduction
Despite the advent of game-centred approaches (GCAs) to teaching sport games (e.g. teaching games for understanding (TGfU)), traditional ‘direct instruction’ approaches dominated by skill and drill practice remain prevalent in physical education. The latter model is founded on the principle of ‘technical proficiency’ being a prerequisite before the introduction of rules and game play (Oslin and Mitchell, 2006). In this approach, students often practise in isolated, decontextualized conditions that are unlikely to generalize to subsequent game conditions, spend much of their lesson time inactive, and have little opportunity for empowerment and creativity (e.g. Butler and McCahan, 2005; Kirk and MacDonald, 1998; Roberts and Fairclough, 2011).
GCAs have been shown to support technique development (e.g. Gray and Sproule, 2011), as well as off-the-ball movements (e.g. Lee and Ward, 2009). GCAs also develop tactical knowledge and performance, tactical transfer among games (e.g. Memmert and Harvey, 2010), as well as transfer from game-situated practices to match play (e.g. Harvey, 2009; Harvey et al., 2010), albeit not for less-skilled/beginning students/players (Holt et al., 2006).
In a recent review of GCA research, Harvey and Jarrett (2014) noted the dearth of evidence on its ability to support students’ opportunities to reach recommended physical activity (PA) levels from a public health perspective (Association for Physical Education (AfPE), 2008; Institute of Medicine (IOM), 2013), supporting previous evidence from a systematic review by Dudley et al. (2011) that also showed that GCAs were underrepresented in the causal literature attributed to PA. From a public health perspective, students in traditional physical education lessons do not reach the United Kingdom’s (UK) (AfPE, 2008) or the United States of America’s (USA) (IOM, 2013) recommended level of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) for at least 50% of the lesson time (e.g. Fairclough and Stratton, 2005a, 2005b; Roberts and Fairclough, 2011; Sallis et al., 1997; Yelling et al., 2000). For example, Roberts and Fairclough (2011) reported high levels of teacher management time, time centred on skill and drill practice, and a focus on full-sided versions of games (i.e. 11 vs. 11 soccer) where students were left to sit out on the sidelines, thus suppressing their PA (and therefore play development) opportunities.
There is some evidence that students’ PA levels in physical education lessons may be higher in certain team sport/game play contexts (e.g. Fairclough and Stratton, 2005a; Hastie and Trost, 2002; Slingerland et al., 2014) such as soccer, basketball, and floor hockey. Roberts and Fairclough (2011) suggested that a teacher’s use of a GCA may aid students in reaching recommended PA goals within physical education lessons (Roberts and Fairclough, 2011; Sallis et al., 2012; Van Acker et al., 2010) and Dudley et al., (2012) have also reported positive correlations between lesson time spent in game play and MVPA. A limited number of studies (Miller et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2015; Van Acker et al., 2010; Yelling et al., 2000) have begun to provide evidence that teachers’ use of a GCA can afford student MVPA opportunities consistent with national recommendations set forth by the AfPE (2008) and the IOM (2013). This research is therefore promising in building an evidence base for suggesting that skill/game learning goals and public health goals are two sides of the same coin and need not be mutually exclusive when a teacher employs a specific pedagogical model such as a GCA (e.g. Blankenship, 2013). However, currently none of the studies examining PA within a GCA has been conducted within the USA, which is surprising given the continued focus in the USA on meeting national recommendations for PA in physical education (IOM, 2013). This current study is therefore a timely addition to this growing literature base on PA within a GCA.
The eco-behavioural framework (Greenwood et al., 1984) is a useful one for research on how GCAs afford students opportunities for learning within a GCA and accruing recommended PA levels. This framework emphasizes the central role of the antecedent conditions created for the purpose of developing and/or maintaining behaviour. These antecedents include the managerial and instructional arrangements and related strategies selected by teachers, and other pertinent instructional behaviours (Greenwood et al., 1984). It has served as the central framework for building evidence for linking effective instruction with academic performance in regular classrooms and special education settings (e.g. Greenwood et al., 1991; Watson et al., 2011). Greenwood et al. (1984: 59) noted that ‘An eco-behavioral approach to instruction is the ability to analyze the components of instruction that contribute maximally to increasing rate and duration of academic responding in the classroom during particular sessions’.
The eco-behavioural framework is particularly pertinent for the current study because the authors were interested in describing what happens to students’ PA levels with a GCA as the antecedent instructional context across three different class periods. This is of particular significance given the domain interaction and lesson structure used by the teacher in these GCA-oriented lessons.
Thus, given the established limitation of traditional, direct instruction approaches to teaching games, the growing concerns regarding low PA levels amongst children (e.g. Trost et al., 2002), the numerous health benefits associated with PA (AfPE, 2008; IOM, 2013), and the limited (albeit emerging) evidence base relative to a teacher’s utilization of the GCA lesson design to optimize students’ PA opportunities in physical education, further investigation is needed on how GCA-focused lessons might contribute to students reaching national health targets (AfPE, 2008; IOM, 2013). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to measure students’ PA levels throughout a physical education soccer unit with lessons designed using a GCA in a USA school context. Specifically, we investigated whether students from three different class periods who participated in a GCA unit of soccer would reach the 50% MVPA criterion set by the AfPE and the IOM (2013) across this unit of work. In addition, we sought to describe variations in students’ PA levels with respect to lesson context and the teacher’s instructional behaviour.
Method
Participants and setting
Students
Participants for this study were 85 students (41 girls) from three separate physical education class periods at one middle school in the western United States. For the purposes of this paper, these classes are named P6, P7, and P8, and were comprised of the following numbers of students: P6: n = 23, 9 girls; P7: n = 26, 12 girls; P8: n = 36, 20 girls. The school was chosen because its students had no previous exposure to GCAs, either in their present schools or in previous grade levels.
Data were originally collected for the purposes of examining the impact of a GCA on the development of selected tactical moves in soccer, specifically how to move off-the-ball to get open to receive the ball from teammates, and this included taking videotaped records of the lessons. Informed consent was received from participants using standardized procedures after formal approval from the institutional review board (IRB) for the protection of human subjects. The school’s principal and resident physical education teacher also gave permission to use the school’s physical education classes for the study. These initial IRB records were provided to gain additional IRB approval for the protection of human subjects for the secondary analysis of these data for the purposes of examining student PA levels, which was granted.
Teacher
The instructor had extensive previous experience implementing a GCA in soccer both in the USA and England and held national level (B) coaching licences in the USA and Europe. This ensured faithful implementation of the GCA, and the opportunity to see the effects of a GCA in its fullest sense (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006). Moreover, the teacher did not plan and implement the lessons specific to promoting higher student PA levels, as the original study was focused on assessing the impact of a GCA on developing selected tactical moves in soccer among students.
Setting
GCA lessons were taught in an indoor gymnasium of 40×30 yards, a typical size for middle schools across the United States. At the time of the study the school had approximately 700 students on its roll, with 42.5% of students eligible for free or reduced cost lunch. 69% of the school’s student population were white, 15% Hispanic, 12% American Indian, with another four percent black/Asian. Physical education occurred daily and was offered for one semester each school year.
Research design
Kirk (2005) outlined a ‘practice-referenced approach’ to serve as an alternative to traditional instructional method studies which compare alternative approaches such as a GCA, typically to direct instruction (Miller et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2015). Kirk (2005) noted that the practice-referenced approach ‘is concerned with making judgments about the usefulness of TGfU [GCAs] for achieving learning appropriate to the model itself and to the circumstances in which it has been applied’ (218). In this current study, this approach was particularly pertinent given that there were no comparison groups in the initial data collection. Moreover, the practice-referenced approach enabled the specific investigation of whether students’ would reach recommended PA levels (AfPE, 2008; IOM, 2013) when an experienced GCA teacher used this approach to teach units of soccer to multiple classes within one USA school context.
The GCA soccer unit
The teacher taught a GCA unit of soccer to the three separate class groups. The unit lasted from 11 (P6 and P7 classes) to 13 lessons (P8 class). Because this project was a secondary data analysis from video-based class records, only eight lessons in each class were suitable for analysis. The inclusion criteria for lessons are noted below in the procedures for data collection section. For observed sessions, total lesson time observed was 836 minutes 52 seconds, and lesson length averaged 34 minutes 43 seconds (SD=3.13).
The original unit objective was to increase students’ decision-making and technique execution within the game (i.e. the ‘what to do’ and ‘when’ and ‘how to do it’ associated with game play). One specific objective for the unit targeted students’ off-the-ball movement, such as playing in a diamond formation or in triangles in order to be able to pass and move quickly, cutting into open spaces when a team had possession of the ball (i.e. support), and/or guarding players and/or spaces when the other team had possession of the ball. Although each class received similar content, the content was manipulated slightly due to the different needs of each class, class size, and facilities available as well as initial ability levels.
The teacher used various specific techniques to engage the students in an authentic GCA unit. They included using the principles of representing and exaggerating games by playing smaller-sided games with modified secondary rules (e.g. modifying the size and shape of the playing areas, restricting players to certain zones of the field, altering the number and size of the goals used, etc.). All game play during this study met the definition of a ‘modified game’ by Roberts and Fairclough (2012). These authors define a modified game as one that includes changes to rules, conditions, and equipment to ‘reduce the dominance of skills and techniques’ and where ‘the numbers of the teams must be equal’ (Roberts and Fairclough, 2012: 104). For example, all games were conditioned to utilize alternative scoring zones, rules about how many players had to touch the ball before a team could score, how many touches students had to have or could have when in possession of the ball (i.e. minimum two touches, maximum three touches), etc. The teacher also utilized pedagogical techniques that have been cited as being synonymous with GCA teaching such as using questioning as a form of instruction, teacher as a player and freeze replays (Metzler, 2000).
The general format for each of the teaching sessions followed closely the one outlined by Metzler (2000): (a) Introduction to tactical problem and initial game form; (b) Use of effective communication skills; (c) Instruction: use of effective pedagogical techniques during game play (e.g. questioning, freeze replays, etc.); (d) Review of lesson content and tactical problem with questions, and an introduction to the next session. In all lessons, the total gym space was divided into multiple game areas, allowing for three modified soccer games to be played simultaneously. Folded mats separated the three games.
Fidelity of GCA teaching
Fidelity of the GCA implementation was assessed using Turner and Martinek’s (1999) validation protocol. This validation instrument has been utilized in previous GCA research assessing PA levels (e.g. Miller et al., 2015) and required that independent observers made judgements about each teaching session based on specific criteria. Lessons were therefore rated against three skill based statements (i.e. the students spent the lesson learning specific techniques taught by the teacher before playing the game; the teacher started the lesson with technique instruction; the major emphasis of the lesson was technique-focused teaching) and four game-centred statements (i.e. the students spent most of the lesson in games or game-based practices; the teacher intervened in game play or in game play situations to discuss strategies/tactics with students; the teacher based his/her teaching on observations of an initial game or game-related situation; the major emphasis of the lesson was tactical instruction in games or game-like practice situations).
Two observers were trained to use the validation tool for the evaluation of each teaching session. For 12.5% of the teaching sessions (three lessons) (McKenzie, 2012), two observers validated the use of appropriate GCA instruction against this protocol. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) levels between these two observers were 100%. For the remaining teaching sessions, one observer validated the GCA approach was being utilized 100% of the time.
Data collection
All lessons were videotaped from a corner of the gymnasium atop the 24ft. bleachers using the widest lens angle possible. This allowed for capturing permanent records of students’ movement throughout each lesson. The teacher wore a wireless microphone so both audio and visual interactions were captured. While this set up enabled the majority of students’ movement, lesson context, and teacher behaviours to be captured, there were occasions where a student or teacher was out of the camera shot because the widest angle possible was unable to capture the full gymnasium space, which meant some manual movement of the camera was necessary.
To ensure that the fullest records possible were collected from the videotaped lesson records and maintain integrity to data collection protocols (i.e. in random selection of target students for student PA behaviour analysis), exclusion criteria were determined. Data from the videotaped lessons were excluded if/when: There was no sound on the entire lesson or over 20% of the videotaped record. The teacher was out of camera shot for over 20% of the observed lesson intervals. Two teaching spaces were used to teach the lesson. The initial 40×30 gym space was lost near the end of the P7 unit (after lesson 9) and after lesson 8 of the P8 unit lessons. Thus, these lessons were not included in the current analysis. A full record of the lesson was not videotaped (i.e. there were occasions where videotaped records did not include a lesson introduction or lesson review/closure, which therefore would have affected measured student PA levels, skewing the data). In instances where one of the original target students randomly selected for analysis (or their ‘back-up’) was out of the videotaped record for over 20% of the lesson intervals, data were subject to re-analysis and a different target student was selected and their behaviour analysed. In other words, in no individual session was the loss of data greater than 20%. This criterion therefore meant the researchers did their best to maintain random selection of target students within the context of video-based coding and its inherent challenges.
System for observing fitness instruction time
Data on students’ PA levels and lesson context were collected using the previously validated system for observing fitness instruction time (SOFIT) (McKenzie, 2012). McKenzie et al. (1991: 196) described SOFIT as ‘a momentary time sampling and interval recording system designed specifically to quantify factors believed to promote health-related physical activity’. Importantly, SOFIT captures both student PA levels and contextual variables that can impact them (Fairclough and Stratton, 2005b; McKenzie and van der Mars, 2015).
SOFIT has been utilized in recent studies to collect data relative to PA and lesson context information in GCA-focused physical education lessons (Miller at al., 2015; Smith et al., 2015) and, as such, was deemed an appropriate instrument for utilization in this current study. Of SOFIT’s three coding phases, only the first two were used for this study. The first phase involves the observation of students’ PA levels. PA level is coded using the numbers 1–5, with 1=lying down, 2=sitting, 3=standing, 4=walking and 5=very active (McKenzie, 2012). The second coding phase involves coding the lesson context. Context codes included M=general content (e.g. transition, break, management), K=general knowledge (e.g. information on fitness, rules, strategy, social behaviour, technique), F=motor content fitness, S=skill practice, and G=game play. Student PA and lesson context data were coded every 20 seconds using momentary time sampling (McKenzie, 2012).
Even though 24 videotaped records were utilized, data collection still followed the procedures of the SOFIT training manual (McKenzie, 2012). PA levels of four randomly selected students were observed on a rotational basis (every four minutes) as well as the lesson contexts in which they occurred. Two new target students of each sex were randomly selected in each lesson from a still video frame at the beginning of the videotaped record. The coder took a screen shot photograph of each randomly selected student to ensure that the correct target student was consistently coded at the correct time and in the correct coding rotation and to ensure that specific target students chosen in each lesson were not overrepresented in the data collection. This, along with the fact that the coder had no previous knowledge of these students, ensured that results would not be biased in any way. If any of the target students for a given lesson were not present on the videotaped record for any of the intervals when they were due to be recorded, a back-up student, who had also been previously randomly selected at the beginning of the videotaped record, was used as a substitute, as per standardized SOFIT protocol. If neither the primary student to be observed nor the back-up student were in the video at the time of time-sampled recording, then this PA interval was left blank. If this loss was greater than 20% in one coded session, data were re-analysed by choosing a different target student during the section of the lesson where the greatest loss of data was noted. A one-way analysis of variance test (F, 2, 21= .273, p = .76) revealed there was no significant variation in the amount of missing data between classes.
Teacher behaviour
Teacher behaviour data were collected using the West Virginia University Teaching Evaluation System (WVUTES) (Hawkins and Wiegand, 1989) in order to encapsulate a greater range of behaviours than possible with SOFIT. 1
In order to align with data collected via SOFIT, teacher behaviours were also coded every 20 seconds using momentary time sampling. One behaviour per interval was recorded. If two behaviours were evident at the ‘record’ prompt, the behaviour with the higher hierarchical ranking was recorded (Hawkins and Wiegand, 1989). As a consequence of the nature of the intervention and its focus on the concurrent development of techniques and tactics within small-sided, modified/conditioned game play, the researchers sub-divided the ‘verbal instruction’ behaviour from WVUTES into two behaviours: verbal non-tactical instruction and verbal tactical instruction. Therefore, the verbal non-tactical instruction category was defined as ‘the teacher is verbally describing to the students how to do an activity or employ a non-tactical skill, or is using a verbal prompt to direct students in attempting a non-tactical skill or activity’. The verbal tactical instruction behaviour category was defined as ‘the teacher is verbally describing to the students how to implement a particular strategy or tactic, or is asking a question related to a strategy or tactic’.
Observer reliability
Two observers conducted all four parts of the SOFIT training included in the SOFIT manual and reached the accepted levels of IOA with the gold standard within each of these sections, where appropriate. When acceptable IOA levels (i.e. 80%) were reached (McKenzie, 2012), observers coded the videotaped records. Initially, one lead observer coded sessions and randomly selected students and the lead author then randomly selected sessions for IOA checks from across the three class periods encompassing 12.5% of the data, in line with standard SOFIT protocols (McKenzie, 2012).
For teacher behaviours, both observers had been previously trained on the WVUTES observation system. Both observers surpassed minimum IOA levels with the gold standard at each stage of the observer training in order to be considered a certified observation specialist with WVUTES. However, additional training was provided to the two coders so they could distinguish between verbal non-tactical instruction and verbal tactical instruction, using videotaped records of GCA teaching not utilized in this study. Once this was completed, observers coded instances of verbal non-tactical instruction and verbal tactical instruction for one full length class session, which surpassed minimum IOA levels (82%). As per the SOFIT part of the study, one lead observer coded sessions and the lead author then randomly selected the sessions from across the three class periods for regular IOA checks.
IOA percentages were calculated for each of the observation categories (i.e. student behaviour, lesson context, and teacher behaviour) following the first and second observer coding each of the lessons using standardized procedures outlined in the SOFIT training manual (McKenzie, 2012). Interval-by-interval percent agreement ranges exceeded the minimum levels of agreement for SOFIT as described by McKenzie (2012) (see Table 1). Scores from the lead observer were used for data analysis (McKenzie, 2012).
Inter-observer agreement scores.
Notes: S1: inter-observer agreement session 1; S2: inter-observer agreement session 2; S3: inter-observer agreement session 3
Data analysis
Before data were analysed, data from paper records were transferred to an electronic SOFIT coding form that had been adapted for the purposes of this current study. This ensured that calculations for each of the three categories were accurate. SOFIT data were then analysed at the class level (van der Mars, 2006) using the methods outlined in the SOFIT training manual (McKenzie, 2012). The percent of time spent in sedentary (SOFIT levels 1, 2, and 3), MVPA (SOFIT level 4), and vigorous physical activity (VPA) (SOFIT level 5) during each lesson for each class was calculated and, again, a mean score computed for each class. This procedure was repeated for the lesson context and teacher behaviour categories.
In addition to calculating MVPA and VPA percentages, energy expenditure (EE) estimates were calculated using metabolic equivalents (METs) by assigning a level of METs as 1.5 for sedentary (i.e. SOFIT levels 1, 2, and 3), 3 for walking (SOFIT level 4) and 6 for vigorous activity (SOFIT level 5) (Ainsworth et al., 2000; Cohen et al., 2007). The total numbers of METs were calculated for each class session based on the METs totals for each observed student, which was based upon the total number and percent of METs gained from walking and vigorous activity levels.
Results
Lesson context
Students spent large amounts of class time in game play, with the highest levels reported for P7 and the lowest for P6. P6 students experienced the highest amount of time in both management and knowledge. Time spent in management and knowledge was lower in the P7 and P8 classes and time spent in game play was also higher in these two classes compared to P6. P6 had two lessons (two and three) where game play was lower than 50% of lesson time, whereas P7 and P8 only spent less than 50% of lesson time in game play in lesson one of the unit (see Table 2 and Figure 1).
Mean (± SD) student behaviour, energy expenditure, lesson context, and teacher behaviour analyses by class period.
Notes: aThe % of VPA to MVPA was calculated by dividing % VPA by % MVPA and *100.
MVPA: moderate to vigorous physical activity; VPA: vigorous physical activity; METs: metabolic equivalents
Mean (%, ± SD) of students’ moderate to vigorous physical activity, vigorous physical activity, energy expenditure from moderate to vigorous physical activity, moderate to vigorous activity from game play, and lesson contexts across three class periods.
Student physical activity levels and energy expenditure
Students’ mean MVPA across the three classes exceeded the 50% MVPA criterion (see Table 2 and Figure 1), with average MVPA levels ranging from 59.26% for the P6 class to 54.59% for the P8 class (see Table 2). The students reached the 50% MVPA level in a majority of lessons in each class period (six out of eight for P6 and P8, and five out of eight for P7).
The game play context resulted in minimal sedentary behaviour among students. For example, during game play the large majority (67.16% to 95.92%) of student PA behaviour was spent in MVPA (walking and vigorous activity) (see Figure 1). The P8 class had the greatest amount of sedentary behaviour during game play from the three class periods (see Table 2).
Conversely, it was the P8 class that had the highest level of VPA, with the P6 class recording the lowest levels. Of note is that in one in every two MVPA intervals observed in the P8 class (and one in every five in total) students were in VPA. This totalled 39.29% of total METs that were gained through VPA. This is in contrast to the P6 and P7 class where in only in one of three MVPA intervals (and one in every six in total) were they observed in VPA. This totalled 29.89% of total METs for P6 and 31.08% for P7 that were gained through VPA (see Table 2 and Figure 1).
The greater contribution of VPA for the students in the P8 class (the last period of the school day) meant that they had the highest total levels of energy expenditure of all of the classes as well as the greatest contribution from MVPA. P7 students had the lowest levels of energy expenditure of all of the classes, as well as the lowest contribution from MVPA. However, when converted to a percentage, P6 had the highest energy expenditure from MVPA (walking and vigorous), with P8 slightly higher than P7 (see Table 2 and Figure 1).
In terms of PA by lesson context, the greatest levels of PA occurred during the game play lesson context, with very minimal sedentary behaviour observed. During management contexts, most PA behaviour was a mix of sedentary and walking, with walking comprising about one fifth of the total student PA behaviour. During knowledge contexts, most student PA behaviour was sedentary, accounting for about one quarter of the total student PA behaviour (see Table 3).
Mean (± SD) student behaviour (SB) and teacher behaviour (TB) analyses by class period and lesson context.
Notes: Sed: sedentary; W: walking; V: vigorous; Ma: management; Go: general observation; So: specific observation; En: encouragement; PFB: positive feedback; CFB: corrective feedback; VI: verbal non-tactical instruction; VTI: tactical instruction; Mo: modelling; PG: physical guidance; NTV: non task verbal; off: off task.
Teacher behaviour
Teacher behaviours are presented in three categories: management and observation, instructor interactions during activity, and instruction during activity (see Figure 2). Across all three classes the teacher spent most of the lesson instructing during activity and/or managing the class (see Table 2 and Figure 2). Concurring with results from lesson context observation, the highest management behaviours were in the P6 class, the first to receive the GCA soccer unit, closely followed by P7, with the lowest in the P8 class, which was the final class to receive the intervention. The pattern was reversed in terms of instruction, with the highest amount of instruction occurring during the P8 class (see Table 2 and Figure 2).
Mean (%, ± SD) teacher behaviours across three class periods.
Tactical instruction was relatively stable across the different classes, and this amount across the three classes (14–17%) reflects the use of tactical prompts, cues, and questioning by the teacher, as per its definition (see Table 2 and Figure 2). During the GCA units of soccer, the teacher spent, on average, between 21% and 27% of lesson time providing knowledge to the students (see Table 2). This time dedicated to explaining and demonstrating tasks contributed to high rates of verbal non-tactical instruction, verbal tactical instruction, and modelling, which ranged from approximately 40–51% across the three classes (see Table 2 and Figure 2). Additionally, the ratio of positive to corrective feedback was high and ranged from 9:4 in P8 to 3:1 in P6, and 7:2 in P7.
In terms of lesson context, most of the knowledge provided to students via verbal instruction and verbal tactical instruction was delivered during the knowledge lesson context, which totalled nearly 20% of the teacher’s total behaviour (see Table 3). Another 10% of the total verbal non-tactical instruction and verbal tactical instruction was delivered during game play for P6 and P7 classes. However, in the P8 class, about 25% of the total verbal non-tactical instruction and verbal tactical instruction was delivered during game play. This is likely a function of the reduced time spent in management activities by the teacher and students in the P8 lessons (see Table 3).
In summary, despite significant amounts of time in managerial activities, the teacher actively supervised, employing both non-tactical and tactical instruction alongside modelling. This was interspersed by periods of general and specific observation. General observation was time spent scanning between the multiple games, and specific observation was time spent observing one game and/or teams/individuals in that one game.
Discussion
In this study we demonstrated that during GCA units of soccer, middle school students can be provided with PA opportunities that are consistent with recommended national PA guidelines for physical education (AfPE, 2008; IOM, 2013). These findings align with those from previous studies (e.g. Miller et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2015; Van Acker et al., 2010; Yelling et al., 2000) collected in a range of different countries/populations, with both similar and alternative instruments, and varying research designs and lesson/unit lengths. For example, Van Acker et al. (2010) only collected data in one single Korfball lesson and used heart rate (HR) monitoring. Yelling et al. (2000) also used HR monitoring, but only with one single-sex group of girls in a netball context. The greatest similarity with the current study were the studies by Miller et al. (2015) and Smith et al. (2015) in that they also utilized direct observation techniques (i.e. SOFIT). In Australia, Miller et al. reported a 26.25% improvement in MVPA to reach the recommended 50% MVPA across the course of what was a six-lesson generic invasion game unit with upper elementary students taught by non-PE specialists. In the UK, Smith et al. compared PA levels of boys and girls taught via the direct instruction and tactical games models over the course of two separate six-lesson invasion game units. The boys taught via the tactical games model achieved 52.9% (rugby) and 57.9% (soccer) MVPA and the girls achieved 45.5% (netball) and 53.9% (soccer) MVPA. However, in this current study we were able to extend the results of Miller et al. (2015) and Smith et al. (2015) given that this current study was conducted in the USA and we did not offer teacher support/development throughout the unit. In addition, we tracked students across a longer unit of work on one activity, and were able to repeat our findings across these multiple class periods, albeit only in one co-educational setting (Miller et al., 2015).
Gabbett et al. (2009) showed that smaller-sided games in smaller field/court areas in invasion games such as soccer increase opportunities for vigorous activity because increased touches on the ball increased heart rates. In the current study, not only did students meet national targets for MVPA, students in each class attained anywhere from just over five to seven minutes of VPA, which is higher than levels reported in previous research (Fairclough and Stratton, 2005a). Fairclough and Stratton outlined that (from a physiological perspective) one reason for VPA making a greater contribution in team games such as soccer is the requirement to sustain PA using large muscle groups’ engagement for longer periods, hence its impact on the heart to beat faster to satisfy oxygen demand. Moreover, soccer is inherently a continuous game that affords greater opportunities for vigorous PA. In this current study, students perhaps were able to maintain vigorous levels more easily as the play space was indoors and therefore smaller (one of the tenets of a GCA).
The amount of time the teacher spent in the knowledge context was greater than what one would expect within a GCA. Though speculative, we attribute this to the fact that it was the students’ first time being taught via a GCA. The teacher may have subconsciously overcompensated by employing more expansive direct instruction. For example, even though the teacher was considered a GCA expert, he could have offered less detailed explanations about each game form and the tactical problems set by these game forms. Instead, he could have stepped back to let the students work together to overcome the games problems by interspersing game play with time for discussion during ‘tactical timeouts’ (Gréhaigne et al., 2005; Harvey and Light, 2015). The teacher behaviour data further supported this notion as high levels of instruction were also observed within the knowledge context.
The notion of stepping back has previously been noted as a key ‘dilemma’ for teachers when teaching for understanding via a GCA (Harvey et al., 2015). By stepping back and simply setting the students a problem by using a specific purpose question such as ‘I want you to think about how your team are possessing the ball when you are playing’ and then letting the students play (Harvey and Light, 2015), this could have reduced time spent in the knowledge context, increasing opportunities for game play and therefore student PA. It would also have provided greater opportunities for the teacher to ask individual and small group questions as well as provide feedback to individuals.
As a consequence of the higher levels of non-tactical and tactical instruction by the teacher, the amount of feedback offered to students was quite low (i.e. only one feedback behaviour per 10 total behaviours). While we would argue that feedback might be reduced as a consequence of the teacher’s use of a GCA because the teacher supports general and specific observation with posing questions to the students, the amount of feedback provided was still rather low. Although the total amount of feedback was low, the teacher’s ratio of positive to corrective feedback was higher than the recommended ratios of 4:3 positive to corrective feedback (Siedentop and Tannehill, 2000). While these ratios are quite different, the nature of the context (i.e. being taught for the first time with a GCA) and the specific lessons (i.e. where students were engaged in game play for the majority of lesson time) may have been a major factor in these results.
Notwithstanding the high amount of time spent in the knowledge context and the high levels of teacher instruction, it was clear in this study that the teacher was not simply ‘rolling out the ball’, which is indicative of the kind of instructional pattern that is argued can occur in the name of a GCA (Metzler, 2011). A combination of the teacher’s active instruction and supervision through questioning during actual game play, coupled with the arrangement of extended class time allocated to small-sided game play, reflected the antecedent conditions (from the eco-behavioural perspective) that afforded students opportunities to accumulate the recommended level of MVPA and associated energy expenditure levels. Indeed, previous studies have shown that active supervision by teachers increases student PA levels and skill engagement in physical education classes (e.g. Patterson and van der Mars, 2008; Sariscsany et al., 1995; Schuldheisz and van der Mars, 2001). Clearly, a key ‘pedagogical dilemma’ (Harvey et al., 2015) is for the GCA teacher to strike a balance between active teaching supervision and not suppressing students’ opportunities to actually play (Metzler, 2011). It is therefore imperative that teachers use a range of direct and indirect behaviours to support students’ learning and align these behaviours with the learning aims of a GCA (Goodyear and Dudley, 2015). The utilization of the SOFIT and WVUTES, coupled with video-based feedback, may therefore enable teachers to develop pedagogical alignments within student-centred physical education models (Goodyear and Dudley, 2015; McKenzie and van der Mars, 2015).
From the data in the current study, it can be inferred that when using a GCA, a lesson context ratio of 10:20:70 management:knowledge:game-based practice (i.e. with a deliberate focus on the combined practice of techniques and tactics in combination) is well within reach. Providing 70% of the lesson context for actual game-based practice time can be a key antecedent ensuring that students have ample opportunities to reach MVPA recommendations (AfPE, 2008; IOM, 2013). In this current study this could have been achieved by reducing management by utilizing persistent teams akin to sport education (Siedentop et al., 2011) in all class periods and not just the P8 class. Reducing lesson time dedicated to the teacher providing content knowledge to the whole class and replacing this with brief small group and individual instruction as outlined above could potentially push the MVPA levels even higher without giving up the educative orientation in games teaching. This pattern of behaviour would have also created more opportunities for the teacher to provide corrective feedback and support verbal tactical instructions (i.e. questioning). It would, therefore, be important in future studies to investigate if a slightly different teacher behaviour profile, where the teacher was more facilitative than directive (i.e. through the use of the quick question and answer sessions in ‘tactical timeouts’ as suggested above), would still encourage the levels of student PA observed in this current study.
Readers are reminded that at the outset of this study the focus was not on the current topic of investigation, that of PA levels within GCA-focused units of soccer. Rather, it was to assess the impact of a GCA on the development of selected tactical moves in soccer, specifically how to move off-the-ball to get open to receive the ball from teammates. This initial focus was corroborated by the fact that across the three classes, between 14% and 17% of the teacher’s instructional behaviour was focused on students’ tactical actions (see Table 2 and Figure 2). We also contend that this focus of the GCA unit in creating movement off-the-ball to support players with the ball created antecedent conditions that encouraged students to engage in PA to recommended levels and, thus, expend a large proportion of their energy from walking and vigorous activity. A previous publication with the game performance scores attributable to individuals in this current study has shown that students were also able to improve game play behaviour during this GCA soccer unit (Harvey, 2006). This current analysis simply took this study one step further and examined these data from a public health standpoint.
We can point to several strengths of the current study. First, an instructor experienced in a GCA taught all units. Second, in contrast to some of the previous research on this topic, students were tracked over the course of an 11 or 13 lesson unit (minus the sessions lost through not having enough intervals to code). Continuing to dedicate a number of lessons to a particular activity, which is commonplace in sport education (Siedentop et al., 2011), aids in demonstrating how more in-depth coverage of content can support both skill-learning and public health goals. Third, in addition to tracking students’ PA levels, contextual and teacher behaviour data were also collected (McKenzie and van der Mars, 2015). A final strength was the covert nature of this particular analysis of PA levels as it was retrospective in nature. This adds to the first and second strengths, that a GCA (when delivered effectively) can have an added benefit of ensuring that students meet recommended levels of PA within physical education, even if teachers do not have ‘increasing/maximizing PA’ as an explicit lesson, unit, or programme objective, akin to the notion of skill-learning and PA accumulation really being two sides of the same coin (Blankenship, 2013).
This current study was not without limitations. First, this was a descriptive study conducted retrospectively through a practice-referenced research design. Although this was also noted as a strength, the downside of the nature of the secondary analysis and practice-referenced design meant we were unable to demonstrate the additional efficacy of a GCA in terms of student PA levels in comparison to another model, such as direct instruction (Miller et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2015). Second, the utilization of video records that could not capture students’ actions in their entirety resulted in some data loss, as a consequence of the chosen target students at times moving out of camera view. However, the researchers did everything to get the most data possible, while remaining faithful to SOFIT’s data collection protocols. Third, we lacked a mechanism for determining the students’ previous exposure to a GCA outside of school. Fourth, the novelty of the class being taught by a ‘new’ instructor may have led the students to be more active in this unit so must also be acknowledged as a potential limitation. Fifth, the number of lessons and/or classes that were part of the study (i.e. the class group being the unit of analysis) was too low to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the relationships or impact of context and/or teacher behaviour on students’ PA levels (McKenzie et al., 2000). Increasing the number of lessons observed and/or classes that were part of the study would provide the necessary increases in sample size required to utilize more advanced statistical techniques such as multi-level regression modelling, where data could be analysed at both the school and class level. Future studies may also consider collecting disaggregated student PA data by using alternative PA monitoring devices such as HR monitors (Van Acker et al., 2010; Yelling et al., 2000) and/or accelerometers (Smith et al., 2015) to enable comparisons to previous studies to be made. Finally, data collection across multiple units of work, and from across different categories of games, would be useful in order to add additional detail to the developing research in this area.
Conclusions
In summary, and within the limitations and design of this current study, it can be concluded that students in a GCA-focused unit of soccer can accumulate recommended PA goals in physical education. Furthermore, the evidence presented in this study adds to the emerging evidence base that supports the claim that GCAs to teaching invasion games in physical education provide an appropriate context for simultaneously fostering game play development (i.e. skill-learning goals) alongside public health goals. Continued replication is needed to further strengthen its generalizability across other types of games and to alternative school contexts.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.