Students’ verbal exchanges and dynamics during Sport Education

Abstract

In physical education (PE), children frequently participate in teams and the exchanges that transpire shape their perspectives and subsequently, influence learning. While Sport Education is one pedagogical model designed to enhance social exchanges through team membership, we previously identified the need for additional research to monitor these exchanges more closely. This study examined the verbal exchanges of students in two fourth grade PE classes participating in a season of team handball. One mixed-skill team from Class 1 (a heterogeneous skill league) and one low-skill team from Class 2 (a homogeneous skill league) were selected for in-depth study. Data collection included videotaped lessons from each team. Data analysis produced descriptive results of the frequency and focus of students’ individual exchanges. Our results indicated middle-to-high status students had higher rates of exchanges at the commencement of the season segments. Students in the homogeneous league had higher frequencies of exchanges than those in the heterogeneous league, and the focus of exchanges predominantly included on-task exchanges for the skill, in both skill leagues. This study highlights the potential for varied rates of exchange, based on student characteristics and unit design. Careful consideration for these factors should be employed to determine optimal learning environments for students.

Keywords

Interaction league structure pedagogical models physical education skill level social status student activities

Introduction

Student learning in groups has become a prominent practice in education for a number of decades. In the 1980s, Johnson and colleagues (Johnson et al., 1980, 1983, 1986) led the way in providing evidence that students could indeed work effectively in small groups. Research from this cohort of authors indicate positive results in terms of learning gains, problem solving, daily achievement and cooperative behavior.

During the same decade, Slavin (1980) extensively examined two cooperative models developed at Johns Hopkins University, aimed at heightening student motivation, called: Team-Games-Tournament (TGT) and Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD). The models include individual responsibilities that contribute to an overall team goal, with rewards based on group performance in weekly competitions (Slavin, 1980). Indeed, one review of research indicates that TGT and STAD are effective in increasing academic achievement, social and affective variables, cross-racial relationships and attitudes toward school in school-based interventions (Slavin, 1990).

Working from the premise that group work can be an effective teaching tool, Cohen (1994) set out to determine the conditions in which group work could be most beneficial. First and foremost, Cohen (1994) explained that for group work to be effective, there must be a common goal that requires the participation and cooperation of all members for completion. The second issue is one of opportunity. That is, even with the presence of a common goal, students are provided varying levels of opportunity within the group, based on the dynamics of the group. Cohen’s work (Cohen, 1994; Cohen et al., 1999; Cohen and Lotan, 2014) has been prolific in determining that student characteristics can limit and/or provide opportunities for students during group work. These characteristics are referred to as ‘status characteristics’ and strongly influence students’ interactions in groups. In a review of research on group work, Cohen (1994) explained that students of lower social or academic status have less influence, lower rates of interaction and fewer leadership opportunities. This is particularly problematic from a socio-constructivist perspective, because these opportunities for interactions within a group are an essential part of constructing meaning and therefore, learning (Rovegno and Dolly, 2006). Hence, if a student’s opportunities for interactions are limited, then we are in turn limiting their potential to learn. Vygotsky (1978) noted decades ago that learning is a social activity, but Cohen (1994) has cautioned that the parts that delineate the sum of learning may need to be unpacked carefully. These elements are of particular importance when exploring methods for examining group work.

As a field, Physical Education (PE) boasts numerous pedagogical models that foreground group work. With specific reference to sports content, two popular examples of models are: Sport Education and Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). The initial reviews of empirical research investigating these models show gains in engagement, enjoyment, skill knowledge, decision-making and game tactics (Holt et al., 2002; Wallhead and O’Sullivan, 2005).

According to Hastie et al. (2011: 129) Sport Education has been “significantly substantiated,” and empirical efforts in the future should be directed toward under-developed areas of Sport Education research and measurements of the outcomes for which it was designed. One such under-developed area noted by proponents of Sport Education is the monitoring of group work within teams (Hastie et al., 2011). Although Sport Education can facilitate interactions with others during group work, the potential for power relationships is evident (Hastie and Wallhead, 2015). In a study by Brock et al. (2009), interactions of primary school aged students were dominated by high-status students during group work. Garcia-Lopez and Gutierrez (2015) also emphasized the need to closely analyze the interactions and dynamics among students during group work in Sport Education, after measuring the empathy and assertiveness of primary and secondary students.

Barker et al. (2015b: 607) suggest that group work in PE has been examined in a ‘zoomed out’ fashion, which has the potential to make connections to learning premature. The most concerted effort to examine student interactions during group work was that of Lafont et al. (2007). These authors found a positive influence of verbal exchanges on skill competency within mixed-skill teams, although the sociograms showed no effect on inter-personal relationships. In a subsequent study, Darnis and Lafont (2015) found that verbal exchanges enhanced motor and tactical skill development in mixed-skill teams, as well as symmetrical and asymmetrical skilled pairs. Both of the previous studies suggest the need for more in-depth analysis of individual verbal exchanges. Additionally, Darnis and Lafont (2015) highlight an essential component of student grouping as relates to skill level, by using asymmetrical and symmetrical pairs. Their findings indicate an advantage in instructional settings for pairs combining high and low skill level, or asymmetrical pairs as described by the authors. While this study focused on dyads, more research is warranted to explore the plausibility of these findings in heterogeneous and homogeneous team settings.

Based on the aforementioned literature and in an attempt to examine the verbal exchanges of students participating in Sport Education, the authors in this study proposed the following hypotheses:

Students with high status will have higher rates of verbal exchanges than low-status students;

Students with higher skill levels will have higher rates of verbal exchanges than lower-skill students; and

The homogeneous low-skill team will have significantly lower rates of on-task verbal exchanges than the heterogenous mixed-skill team.

As a consequence, the purpose of this study was to examine the frequency and focus of students’ verbal exchanges during a season of Sport Education.

Methods

Participants

Two teams (n = 11 students) were purposefully selected from two grade four classes (n = 106; average age = 10.2 years) participating in an 18-lesson Sport Education modified team handball season. Purposeful sampling allowed the investigator to choose participants or groups that would provide relevant information to the questions being examined (Patton, 1990). In the case of this study, comparative analysis of verbal exchanges based on skill level and league designation was essential to the evaluation of the hypotheses. Prior to the study, all students completed skills testing to determine their skill level for the purpose of team and league designation. Siedentop et al. (2011) suggest that skill challenges or skills tests be used as a tool for selecting even teams in Sport Education. Skills testing included assessment of students’ passing and cutting patterns while working on a throwing task in pairs (Rovegno et al., 2001). Based on the skill assessment, students were divided into either higher-skilled or lower-skilled groups, and then organized into teams (Siedentop et al., 2011).

Class One included one league of eight mixed-skill teams (i.e. a combination of higher-skilled and lower-skilled students) with five or six students per team. Class Two also included eight teams of 5–6 students; however, in this case, the teams were organized homogenously, which resulted in a lower-skilled league and a higher-skilled league. This design was selected because, to date, no studies of Sport Education have reported on the incorporation of homogeneous teams. All leagues completed the same Sport Education unit format. For the purpose of this study, and to provide representation for each class/league, one mixed-skill team from Class One (n = 6) and one lower-skilled team from Class Two (n = 5) were randomly selected for in-depth analysis.

Setting

This study took place at an elementary school in southeastern USA. Students at this school participate in PE for 30 minutes daily, in classes of 50–60 students organized by grade level. The curriculum is based on a movement approach and in addition to numerous motor skill activities, students participate in 3–4 units of Sport Education yearly. By consequence, the structural elements of persisting teams, formal competition and the taking of team and officiating roles were not new to the students. The instruction of the unit was provided by one PE teacher and a teacher’s aide, both of whom had extensive experience with the Sport Education model. Eight university students were present for the purpose of observing the unit, as part of a teacher preparation course. Occasionally the university students would clarify a rule, keep the game time, or help set up the fields/courts but were strictly prohibited from interacting as a coach, referee or decision-maker for the teams.

Sport Education unit

The Sport Education season consisted of 18 lessons of modified team handball for each class and included a pre-season, regular season and post-season tournament (Table 1). Indoor courts and outdoor grassy fields were utilized to enable a practice area with one goal for each team and six simultaneous playing areas with two goals, once play began. Playing areas were approximately 15 meters long without side boundaries and included a 3-meter arch around the goal, which could only be occupied by the goalkeeper. A three versus two plus one game format was used, allowing one player to play goalkeeper when on defense. This format was intended to encourage passing opportunities and off-the-ball movements.

Table 1

Sport Education unit.

Unit	Lessons	Content
Pre-season	1	Selection of team name and colors; Body positioning
	2	Selection of team roles; Offensive and defensive footwork; passing
	3	Team warm-up ideas; Ball handling, passing
	4	Student-directed team warm-up; Passing and shooting on goal
	5	Student-directed team warm-up; Inter-squad scrimmage of three versus three, without rules
	6	Mock game to demonstrate game rules; Inter-squad scrimmage of three versus three, with rules
	7	Advanced passing and cutting to open space
Regular season	8–14	Team practice and two scheduled league games, daily
Post-season	15–17	Round-robin tournament
	18	Awards ceremony

The pre-season extended across seven lessons and included direct skill instruction from the teacher, game rules, officiating procedures and team decisions such as the selection of coach, equipment manager, fitness leader, team name, color and mascot. Daily instruction included the teacher explaining and demonstrating each skill drill focused on the daily topic, followed by students practising the drill with their team. The regular season encompassed eight lessons, and included a student-directed daily routine of individual team practice and two modified team handball games of three versus three against other teams using sub-groups. Team practice could include any fitness warm-up or handball drill of the team’s choosing.

Most teams utilized the drills presented by the teacher earlier in the unit. The teacher’s role in the unit diminished substantially during the regular season, to include: announcements, maintenance of the master game clock and dismissal as students reported to their team area for practice, checked the schedule for the playing area and opponent, set up the field/court, and reported scores and stats on a recording sheet, following competition. Teams without a scheduled contest officiated. The remaining four days of the unit took the form of a round robin tournament and awards ceremony. To confirm instructional validity, two researchers with significant experience and publication records related to Sport Education viewed four randomly selected lessons from each of the two classes. Utilizing a 10-item checklist outlining teacher and learner processes during Sport Education, developed by Hastie et al. (2013), the researchers reached 100% agreement on the instructional approach in each lesson.

Data collection

Nine lessons were videotaped (odd-numbered lessons) for the target team in both classes (18 lessons total) using a GoPro Hero 3+ Black Edition camera. The GoPro camera recorded all audio and video, using a wide-angle lens to keep all participants in view. During each lesson, one of the student participants wore the GoPro, using an adjustable head strap mount with protective casing. At the beginning of each class, the first author asked which team member wanted to wear the camera. A team member always volunteered and no student was ever coerced into wearing the camera. The GoPro was specifically selected as a data collection tool in this study, based on the observations of Barker et al. (2015a) when utilizing video cameras. Barker et al. (2015a) noted that stationary videotaping did not effectively capture dialogue between students and that the presence of a teacher could influence student communications. The GoPro allowed all audio and video of the team to be captured without interruption of narratives and verbal exchanges, due to the proximity of an adult. Limitations were that the student wearing the camera was not visible and their nonverbal movements could not be recorded, unless they used a head movement. To illustrate, a head nod could easily be detected; however, a shoulder shrug or sad facial expression would not be visible. This limitation was considered minimal, since all verbal exchanges were recorded and the student wearing the GoPro changed daily.

Data analysis

The 18 videotaped lessons were transcribed to include all verbal statements and nonverbal actions (e.g. shoulder shrug or head nod). Specifically, the verbal statements were transcribed verbatim and the nonverbal actions were scripted in text. An ad hoc system for analysis was developed, to enable greater insights into the particular pedagogical issues under investigation and to allow the understanding of complex phenomena that might not be possible by a systems-based approach (Walsh, 2006).

The transcriptions were coded for frequency and focus of verbal exchanges for each student during each lesson. Due to slight differences in class times, the verbal exchanges were converted to averages per lesson to normalize the data for varying numbers of team members and the categories of status and skill. Verbal exchanges were only tallied for the communications between team members. For example, conversations with the teacher, researcher, or other teams were not included, as the purpose of this study was to examine how students’ verbal exchanges changed as a part of the team over the course of a Sport Education season.

The focus of the verbal exchanges included on-task (game or team related) or off-task (not related to the lesson or season). On-task verbal exchanges were defined as all statements or actions pertaining to daily class events (e.g. “We switch sides, don’t we?”; “I want to be fitness leader”; “Catch it and throw it to Pat”; Karly nods ‘no’ when asked about changing partners). Off-task verbal exchanges were defined as all statements or actions that did not relate to the lesson or daily class events at all (e.g. “Do funny faces during math class again”; “Did your mother do your hair today?”; “I have to go to the bathroom”; “I see a bird”). To ensure reliability, a research assistant coded all statements a second time to ensure proper category determination of on-task and off-task verbal exchanges. For both categories, the following formula (Equation 1) was used (Metzler, 1990):

Overall interrater reliability = \frac{Lowest observed frequency}{Highest observed frequency} \times 100

When averaged, the overall inter-rater reliability results were 99.6%, which surpassed the recommendations by van der Mars (1989) to demonstrate strong agreement.

Cohen (1994) explained that status is socially evaluated and cannot be predetermined, because it is unique to each setting. Cohen and Lotan (2014) also noted that status is a social ranking that is agreed upon by the group. Utilizing these concepts from Cohen et al. (1999), as well as extensive evidence from Brock et al. (2009) demonstrating that students are aware of who has status in their setting, their status in this study was determined through the rankings generated by team members. Specifically, team members were privately and individually given a list of the members of their team and asked to rank the students from most to least important to their team. The word ‘important’ was chosen instead of ‘status’ to ensure that students understood the language and to avoid the assumption of status characteristics in the setting (e.g. best player, most popular or most attractive). Next, the researcher listed the team members as indicated by the student and asked the student to verify the ranking of most to least important team members. Finally, each student was asked to draw a line on the list, dividing the team into two groups: The middle-high and middle-low importance team members.

When all lists were compiled, all students were in agreement for both categories. Students did not rank themselves, and the results of the rankings were not shared with the students nor used as any identifying factor during the unit, in an effort to minimize the potential negative social consequences of ranking peers or being ranked by peers. Furthermore, the researcher did not have any further communications with the students concerning status.

Results

Overall results during the team handball unit produced three main findings. First, the middle-to-high status students had an increased rate of verbal exchanges at the commencement of season segments (i.e. lessons 1, 9, and 15). Second, there were differences in the frequency of verbal exchanges between students across the two class formats (heterogeneous or homogenous leagues). Third, the focus of verbal exchanges were predominantly on-task. All data are presented as averages to normalize the data for varying numbers of team members and the categories of status and skill.

Rate of interaction based on status

The overall averages of verbal exchanges per lesson were similar between the middle-to-high status (n = 29) and middle-to-low status (n = 21) students; however, the middle-to-high status students displayed a greater average of verbal exchanges per lesson than the middle-to-low status students at the initiation of season segments, as follows: pre-season 52:26, regular season 38:23 and post-season 31:13 (Figure 1). Specifically, during lessons 1, 9 and 15 the middle-high status students interacted an average of 49% more than the middle-low status students.

Figure 1

Comparison of the average number of verbal exchanges by lesson and season segment, for middle-high status and middle-low status students.

Rate of interaction based on league designation regarding skill level

Results of student verbal exchanges during the team handball unit indicated three main findings concerning frequency of verbal exchanges and skill level. First, the low-skill students in the homogeneous league had a higher average of verbal exchanges with teammates per lesson (n = 41) than the low-skill students in the heterogeneous league (n = 15) (Figure 2). Second, high-skill students in the heterogeneous league had a higher average of verbal exchanges per lesson (n = 29) than the low-skill students in the same league (n = 19) (Figure 2). The third finding concerning frequency of verbal exchanges indicated that low-skill students in the homogeneous league had a higher average per lesson (n = 41) than the high-skill students (n = 29) and the low-skill students in the mixed team league (n = 15) (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Average number of verbal exchanges by lesson and season segment, for the heterogeneous (Class One) and homogeneous (Class Two) teams.

Focus of verbal exchanges

Of all the verbal exchanges in both leagues combined, 95.4% (3980/4170) were on-task. Figure 3 shows the similarity across both leagues, with 2312 of 2410 verbal exchanges in Class One (heterogeneous teams) and 1668 of 1760) of verbal exchanges in Class Two (homogeneous team) being assessed as on-task.

Figure 3

Focus of student verbal exchanges for heterogeneous skill and homogeneous skill teams.

Discussion

As a whole, and confirmed by the instructional validity measures incorporated (Hastie et al., 2013), this unit of Sport Education appeared to be well-delivered with a fast-paced daily routine, detailed skill instruction, gradually increasing student roles and responsibilities, and a festive nature. One could say that this unit was a true representation of the key features of Sport Education (Siedentop et al., 2011). This could explain the finding that student verbal exchanges for all students were largely focused on tasks concerning the games and season (95.4%), as opposed to having off-task discussions. Furthermore, the findings in this study discount the hypothesis that students on the homogeneous low-skill team would have lower rates of on-task verbal exchanges than heterogeneous mixed-skill teams. In fact, the rates were quite similar in both groups, resulting in 94.8% and 96% on-task verbal exchanges, respectively. This result echoes the positive conclusions of numerous studies that were completed since the inception of Sport Education, noting: active participation (Vidoni and Ward, 2009), high levels of engagement and compliance (Wallhead and O’Sullivan, 2007), and a motivating environment (Pill, 2008).

Although status appeared to minimally influence the overall rates of verbal exchanges, higher-status students did have much higher rates at the initiation of the season segments. This result could be due to the fact that both team captains were in the middle-to-high status range. Further explanation could be that it is the expectation for team captains to lead the team at critical points in the season and/or game. The work of Cohen et al. (1994, 1999, 2014) suggests that we should examine the interactions during group work that lead to opportunities, and in this case power roles, based on status characteristics. Teachers must be cognizant that exercises such as the selection of captains can proliferate negative power relations when not monitored closely (Hastie and Wallhead, 2015). Nonetheless, this finding at least in part contradicts the results of Brock et al. (2009) that show that students were silenced throughout an entire unit of Sport Education based on their status, to the point of extinguishing engagement. Teachers may not be able to completely prevent aggressive power relationships, but awareness is a step forward in adapting the curriculum, establishing equitable participation and providing a positive experience for all (Garcia-Lopez and Gutierrez, 2015). It is clear that a more in-depth analysis of these questions is warranted.

One facet of this study that is not common in Sport Education units is the notion of skill grouping. Darnis and Lafont (2015) found asymmetrical grouping was more beneficial than symmetrical grouping when constructing tactical knowledge for students working in dyads; however, in a team setting, the present study indicated that students in the middle-to-low skill homogeneous teams interacted more frequently than their counterparts in the heterogeneous team. This finding suggests that middle-to-low-skill students in the homogeneous league may have felt more comfortable being on a team with and competing against other students of the same skill level. In addition, a more substantial and surprising finding is that middle-to-low skill level students in the homogeneous league also interacted more frequently than middle-to-high skill level students in the heterogeneous league. Our finding strongly supported the feasibility and need for further exploration of skill grouping in Sport Education, as well as qualitative analysis of why students might prefer homogeneous teams and leagues.

With that in mind, one element included within the philosophy of Sport Education is that of “graded competition” (Siedentop et al., 2011: 104). In graded competition, leagues are arranged that match students of similar skill level against one another and, in some cases, even the form of game is different across the competition levels. The intent of graded competition is to even the playing field across students, but based on the results of this study, graded competition may be useful in equalizing status relationships and opportunities as well. One noteworthy point about this particular study is that there were never any derogatory comments by students concerning skill or league designation. Further research is needed to determine if this finding was unique to the setting due to the students’ previous experiences with Sport Education or other factors.

Conclusions

The purpose of this paper was to provide an initial exploratory analysis of students’ verbal exchanges during a season of Sport Education. One unique feature of the methodology in this study is the use of a GoPro camera, which enabled a naturalistic view of what transpired when the students worked in groups. This technology enabled the researchers to be privy to conversations and group dynamics that in the past have taken years of rapport-building to ascertain, if possible at all. Through these narratives, the results of this study indicated that descriptive differences did exist in the verbal exchanges, based on student characteristics and group arrangement. The authors have suggested the employment of more comprehensive qualitative methods in future studies, to provide an enriched analysis which the current paper could not provide, due to the data collection and analysis methods employed. Suggestions by others include conversational analysis (Azzarito and Ennis, 2003; Faulkner and Finlay, 2002) and critical discourse analysis (Barker et al., 2015a).

As a result of this study, two main suggestions for future research are offered. One suggestion is to explore if increased verbal exchanges do indeed have a direct influence on learning. To accomplish this, individual student verbal exchanges would have to be measured using similar methods as in this study but also implementing psychomotor and/or cognitive components, to assess the associated changes.

The second suggestion for future research is to analyze student verbal exchanges more specifically to determine the influence of status and skill on both team and game decisions. In the present study, the authors examined whether student verbal exchanges were on-task or off-task. Future research is suggested to determine if the on-task verbal exchanges were instructional or managerial, and whether they had any substantial influence on the team or game. Specifically, who makes the higher-level or more critical decisions when the stakes are of greater significance? Answering these questions can bring us closer to providing more equitable Sport Education units that can address potential power relationships, when and if they exist.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Azzarito

Ennis

(2003) A sense of connection: Toward social constructivist physical education. Sport, Education and Society 8(2): 179–197.

Barker

Quennerstedt

Annerstedt

(2015a) Inter-student interactions and student learning in health and physical education: A post-Vygotskian analysis. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(4): 409–426.

Barker

Quennerstedt

Annerstedt

(2015b) Learning through group work in physical education: A symbolic interactionist approach. Sport Education and Society 20(5): 604–623.

Brock

Rovegno

Oliver

(2009) The influence of student status on student interactions and experiences during a sport education unit. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14(4): 355–375.

Cohen

(1994) Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research 64(1): 1–35.

Cohen

Lotan

(2014) Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cohen

Lotan

Scarloss

. (1999) Complex instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory into Practice 38(2): 80–86.

Darnis

Lafont

(2015) Cooperative learning and dyadic interactions: Two modes of knowledge construction in socio-constructivist settings for team-sport teaching. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(5): 459–473.

Faulkner

Finlay

(2002) It’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it! Conversation analysis: A discursive methodology for sport, exercise and physical education. Quest 54(1): 49–66.

10.

Garcia-Lopez

Gutierrez

(2015) The effects of a sport education season on empathy and assertiveness. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20(1): 1–16.

11.

Hastie

Calderón

Rolim

. (2013) The development of skill and knowledge during a Sport Education season of track and field athletics. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 84(3): 336–344.

12.

Hastie

Martínez

Calderón

(2011) A review of research on Sport Education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 16(2): 103–132.

13.

Hastie

Wallhead

(2015) Operationalizing physical literacy through sport education. Journal of Sport and Health Science 4(2): 132–138.

14.

Holt

Strean

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.

15.

Johnson

Maruyama

(1983) Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research 53(1): 5–54.

16.

Johnson

Skon

Johnson

(1980) Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic conditions on children’s problem-solving performance. American Educational Research Journal 17(1): 83–93.

17.

Johnson

Stanne

(1986) Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning. American Educational Research Journal 23(3): 382–392.

18.

Lafont

Proeres

Vallet

(2007) Cooperative group learning in a team game: Role of verbal exchanges among peers. Social Psychology of Education 10(1): 93–113.

19.

Metzler

(1990) Instructional Supervision for Physical Education. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

20.

Patton

(1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park: Sage.

21.

Pill

(2008) A teachers’ perceptions of the sport education model as an alternative for upper primary school physical education. Australia Healthy Lifestyles Journal 55(2): 23–29.

22.

Rovegno

Dolly

(2006) Constructivist perspectives on learning. In: Kirk

Macdonald

O’Sullivan

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

23.

Rovegno

Nevett

Brock

. (2001) Teaching and learning basic invasion-game tactics in 4th grade: A descriptive study from situated and constrained theoretical perspectives. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 20(4): 370–388.

24.

Siedentop

Hastie

Van der Mars

(2011) Complete Guide to Sport Education. Champaign: Human Kinetics.

25.

Slavin

(1980) Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research 50(2): 315–342.

26.

Slavin

(1990) Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

27.

Van der Mars

(1989) Observer reliability: Issues and procedures. In: Darst

Zakrajsek

Mancini

(eds) Analysing Physical Education and Sport Education. Champaign: Human Kinetics, pp.53–79.

28.

Vidoni

Ward

(2009) Effects of fair play instruction on student social skills during a middle school sport education unit. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14(3): 285–310.

29.

Vygotsky

(1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

30.

Wallhead

O’Sullivan

(2005) Sport education: Physical education for the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(2): 181–210.

31.

Wallhead

O’Sullivan

(2007) A didactic analysis of content development during the peer teaching tasks of a sport education season. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 12(3): 225–243.

32.

Walsh

(2006) Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge.