mcmahen thesis final draft 1-5-12
TRANSCRIPT
To the University of Wyoming:
The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Derrick McMahen presented on
January 10, 2012.
Dr. Tristan Wallhead, Chair
Dr. Peter Moran, External Member
Dr. Qin Zhu, Member
Approved:
Dr. Mark Byra, Head, Division of Kinesiology & Health
Joseph Steiner, Pharm.D., Dean, College of Health Sciences
McMahen, Derrick, A Didactic Analysis of Tactical Transfer during the Tactical Games
Approach. MS, Division of Kinesiology and Health, May 2012
The Tactical Games Approach (TGA) is a games-based instructional model designed to teach
students the underlying principles of games so that students really understand game structure and
tactics. A foundational principle that underlies the TGA is that games have common tactical
problems and concepts. Almond (1986) proposed that these common structures allow for the
classification of games, and more importantly, provide a structure for students to understand
common attributes among games that could carry across similarly classified games. The premise
of this concept is that students can transfer knowledge and performance in one game form to
another and thus become more knowledgeable games players. Despite this supposition there
remains a dearth of literature that has provided empirical evidence to validate the claims that
TGA can facilitate student tactical transfer across games within the same classification. Using
net games, Mitchell and Oslin (1999) showed that there was significant improvement in students’
decision-making from one net game unit to another (badminton to pickleball) using the TGA.
Although providing much needed impetus for the generation of empirical data the study design
and evaluation instruments utilized within this study provided insufficient information to
separate tactical decision-making from skill execution within net games. Mitchell and Oslin
(1999) recommended that future research should examine tactical transfer in invasion games
where off-the-ball movements are a large component of effective game play and do not require
coordinated controlled projection of a ball or object. The purpose of this study was to provide a
didactic analysis of the evolution and transfer of invasion game offensive skills and tactics of
five elementary students participating in two TGA units. The didactic protocol included
collecting data regarding teacher intentions Data analysis consisted of identification of Critical
Didactic Incidents (CDIs) and search for configurations in the data across episodes. Results
revealed the TGA to be an effective model in facilitating student learning of offensive on-the-
ball and off-the-ball invasion game tactics. Student learning primarily occurred as a function of
aligned teacher intent and elaboration and the frequency of aligned feedback that occurred within
both practice and game tasks. Off-the-ball straight line cutting actions primarily transferred
across units because of the similarity of fundamental skills required to perform an appropriate cut
across the two TGA units. Passing decision making and quality of pass exhibited some transfer
towards the end of the ultimate frisbee unit, but was limited by the decrease in teacher
interventions and feedback and resultant student modifications of the tasks. The contextual
variance in the dimensions of the skill themes and object trajectory in ultimate frisbee also
limited transfer in all three offensive game performance variables analyzed.
A DIDACTIC ANALYSIS OF TACTICAL TRANSFER DURING THE TACTICAL GAMES APPROACH
byDerrick McMahen
A thesis submitted to the Division of Kinesiology and Health and the University of Wyoming in a partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCEin
KINESIOLOGY AND HEALTH
Laramie, WyomingMay, 2012
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................5
Purpose of the Study............................................................................................................6
Research Questions..............................................................................................................6
Limitations and Delimitations..............................................................................................7
Definitions of Terms............................................................................................................8
Chapter 2
Review of Literature......................................................................................................................10
Overview............................................................................................................................10
Why Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) was Developed?.................................10
TGfU Adapted to the Tactical Games Approach (TGA).......................................14
Research on student learning within TGfU and TGA...........................................15
Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding Student Learning in TGfU/TGA.................21
Transfer of Skill and Tactics..............................................................................................24
Tactical Transfer....................................................................................................27
Didactic Research..............................................................................................................29
Didactic Research in Physical Education..........................................................................32
Chapter 3
Methodology..................................................................................................................................34
Study Design......................................................................................................................35
Setting................................................................................................................................35
Participants.........................................................................................................................36
Procedures......................................................................................................................................36
Data Collection Methodology........................................................................................................38
Critical Didactic Incident (CDI) Methodology..................................................................38
Didactic Observation.........................................................................................................38
Chronology of Data Collection......................................................................................................39
A Priori Analysis................................................................................................................39
A Posteriori Analysis.........................................................................................................40
Data Treatment...............................................................................................................................41
Reliability of CDI Identification........................................................................................43
Chapter 4
Results............................................................................................................................................44
Research Question 1..........................................................................................................44
Passing Decision Making.......................................................................................45
Quality of Pass.......................................................................................................48
Cutting Action........................................................................................................52
Research Question 2..........................................................................................................57
Teacher Elaboration of Content Knowledge to the Participants............................59
Teacher Demonstration and Explanation...................................................59
Teacher Intervention during Learning Tasks.............................................61
iii
Factors that Negatively Impacted Learning during Ultimate Frisbee....................71
Context of Ultimate Frisbee.......................................................................71
Chapter 5
Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................75
Discussion..........................................................................................................................75
Conclusions........................................................................................................................83
Recommendations..............................................................................................................85
Limitations.........................................................................................................................86
References.....................................................................................................................................88
Appendices....................................................................................................................................96
Appendix A - IRB Letter of Acceptance...........................................................................96
Appendix B - Team Handball Unit Plock Plan..................................................................98
Appendix C - Ultimate Frisbee Unit Block Pan..............................................................100
Appendix D - TGA Lesson Sequence..............................................................................102
Appendix E - Pre-Lesson Teacher Interview Questions..................................................104
Appendix F - In-Task Student Interview Questions........................................................106
Appendix G - Post-Lesson Teacher Interview Questions................................................108
Appendix H - Key Behaviors for Passing Decisions.......................................................110
Appendix I - Key Behaviors for off-the-ball Actions......................................................112
Appendix J - Passing Decisions Coding Instrument........................................................114
Appendix K - Off-the-Ball Actions Coding Instrument..................................................116
iv
List of Tables and Figures
Figure 1 - Participant percentage appropriate passing decision making during game play
performance across team handball and ultimate Frisbee lessons...................................................48
Figure 2 - Participant percentage of appropriate quality passes to a supporting teammate during
game play performance..................................................................................................................52
Figure 3 - Participant percentage successes of appropriate cutting actions of support players
during game play performance......................................................................................................56
Figure 4 - Didactic Transposition of Content within the TGA.....................................................61
Table 1 - Student performance during the pass and move forward practice task from lesson 5...69
Table 2 - Pass and Move Practice Task Performance Lesson 9....................................................75
Table 3 - Student Performance during 2v1 Practice Task Lesson 10...........................................78
v
Chapter 1
Introduction
The largest single content area in most physical education programs is the teaching-
learning of sport-related games (Metzler, 2000). In the past 30 years little has changed in the way
teachers deliver sport-based units: students get a brief time to practice isolated skills, followed by
an introduction to game rules, with an extended time to play the game for the rest of the unit.
Bunker and Thorpe (1982) suggested that this skill-based approach to the teaching of games is
flawed as it does not teach the students about the game and the necessary decision-making
capacities to be proficient games players. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) went on to argue that sport-
based physical education should attempt to teach the underlying principles of games so that
students really understand each game’s structure and tactics as well as the necessary performance
skills. This conceptualization elicited the genesis of the teaching games for understanding
approach (TGfU: Bunker & Thorpe, 1982).
The TGfU model shifts games learning from an approach based on the development of
techniques or skills within highly structured lessons to a more student-based approach that links
tactics and skills in game contexts (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982; Thorpe & Bunker, 1989). The
approach highly values the role of the teacher as facilitator and the role of the learner as active
and involved in the learning process (Griffin & Patton, 2005). The key aspect of the model lies in
the design of well-structured (i.e., conditioned) games that require students to make decisions to
elevate their understanding of games (i.e., increase tactical awareness).
The Tactical Games Approach (TGA) evolved as an instructional model from Bunker and
Thorpe’s (1982) teaching games for understanding conceptual framework. With the same goal of
improving games players by foregrounding the decision-making process, the TGA provided a
more simplified, prescriptive task sequence that would achieve the aims of the TGfU process. In
the TGA, students first play an initial modified version of the parent game, and that game has a
specific tactical problem. After the initial game, the students are presented questions that probe
the students on the tactical problem the initial game presented. Once the questions have been
completed, the students are placed in a specific practice to guide their learning and to practice the
skills and movements required to solve the tactical problem presented in the initial game. At the
end of the lesson, the students are placed back into the initial game form, allowing the students
an opportunity to apply what they have learned with an authentic game setting (Griffin, Mitchell
& Oslin, 1998).
Tactical Transfer. A foundational principle that underlies the development of both the
TGfU and TGA is that games have common tactical problems and concepts. Almond (1986)
proposed that these common structures allow for the classification of games, and more
importantly, provide a structure for students to understand common attributes among games that
could carry across similarly classified games. This classification system suggested that nearly all
games taught in a physical education program can be classified into one of four types: invasion,
net/wall, fielding/run-scoring, and target (Almond, 1986). For example, soccer, and basketball
are categorized as invasion games as they have similar offensive and defensive principles. To
score, a team must invade another team’s territory and place a ball or object into their opponent’s
goal. Likewise defensively, the team must prevent the team with possession from moving the
ball forward and projecting the object into their goal. Tactically these games have very similar
concepts like off-the-ball offensive support movements, defensive positioning, and passing
decision-making. Even though the skills required to play these games are vastly different the
tactical aspect of these games are similar. The premise of this concept is that students can
transfer knowledge and performance in one game form to another and thus become more
knowledgeable games players.
Perceptual motor and intellectual skills are typically distinguished by specificity of
transfer. Practiced skills generally carry over only narrowly to similar contents and contexts and
this phenomenon forms the basis for the identical elements theory of Thorndike (1903; see
Hilgard and Bower 1975 for discussion). The main idea within identical elements theory is that
transfer depends on having shared elements in acquisition and transfer; the larger the number of
such shared elements, the greater the likelihood that transfer will occur (Rosenbaum, Carlson,
and Gilmore, 2001). There has been little research specifically examining transfer between
fundamental motor skills and sport specific skills. In a study conducted by O’Keeffe and
colleagues (2007), they investigated the concepts of transfer and specificity in a practical
physical education setting. Their results provided evidence for both transfer and specificity of
fundamental overarm throwing to the specific skills of badminton overhead clear and the javelin
throw. Despite this initial evidence, there remains a dearth of literature that has provided
empirical evidence to further validate skill transfer and more specifically tactical transfer. To
date, only one study has been conducted to examine students’ tactical transfer using TGA. Using
net games, Mitchell and Oslin (1999) showed that there was significant improvement in students’
decision-making from one net game unit to another (badminton to pickleball) using the TGA.
Although providing much needed impetus for the generation of empirical data to support the use
of the game classification system the design of this study presented some methodological
limitations. Specifically, the GPAI evaluation instrument provided insufficient information to
separate tactical decision-making from skill execution within net games. This limitation is
problematic since many novice players will develop decision-making abilities far in advance of
skill acquisition (French & Thomas, 1987). Mitchell and Oslin (1999) recommended that future
research should examine tactical transfer in invasion games where tactical similarities are
perhaps even greater than in the net games category. Also within invasion games off-the-ball
movements are large component of effective game play and do not require coordinated
controlled projection of a ball or object. This dimension of the game performance may more
closely align with changes in tactical cognition.
Statement of the Problem
Currently there exists no studies that have investigated the extent to which students’
tactical understanding and performance transfer from one invasion game to another using the
TGA. Furthermore, the lack of research regarding tactical transfer is of particular concern in light
of the recognition that knowledge, and the ability to use such knowledge to make game-related
decisions about what to do in any given situation, is critical to effective game performance
(Bunker & Thorpe, 1986). If the TGA is effective in fostering tactical transfer within game
classifications this provides evidence for an entirely different games curriculum. If teachers can
select or sample different games from the same category and children can be led to understand
similarities between apparently dissimilar games within a game form then the curriculum can
become more focused and breadth and depth of knowledge can be achieved more efficiently.
Research studies are needed that have the methodological capability to assess changes in tactical
decision-making as a separate entity from skill execution.
A qualitative didactic methodology approach may provide a sharper lens to examine the
dynamics of tactical knowledge and performance transfer across different invasion games. The
theoretical assumption at the foundation of the didactic research method is based primarily on the
structure of the content knowledge to be taught and learned as the decisive element of the
functioning of didactic system (Amade-Escot, 2005). Within didactics the learning that takes
place is believed to be influenced and formed by the participants’ interpretations of the salient
variable of the content and their role in the social context in which the interaction takes place
(Schubauer-Leoni & Grossen, 1993). The production of content knowledge is thus assumed to be
dynamic and unpredictable as it is persistently evolving through participant interpretation within
particular social situations (Amade-Escot, 2000b).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the TGA in developing and
transferring 5 fifth grade students’ knowledge and performance of offensive invasion game
tactics across two units of instruction. A didactic qualitative research methodology will be
utilized for data collection purposes for interpretation of student content knowledge, student
intentions, and interpretation of student performance during the TGA.
Research Questions
1. How does student offensive tactical knowledge and performance of invasion games
evolve within team handball and transfer to ultimate frisbee taught with TGA? What are
the differences between content intended to be taught and actually learned and transferred
by the students?
2. What characteristics of teacher and student behavior within the didactic milieu of the
TGA shape the tactical knowledge and performance actually learned and transferred by
students?
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations and delimitations that should be considered for this study.
Limitations:
1. The study is restricted to obtaining participants’ opinions of the interaction within
specific tasks of the curriculum. It is not possible to verify the impact of outside effects
of the dynamics of participants’ interaction and development of content knowledge
within the tasks.
2. The interpretations of behaviors are made by the teacher, participants, and the
researcher observer. The collaborative data collection and interpretational study design
may provoke modified behaviors that may not normally occur during a TGA unit.
Delimitations:
1. This case study is the description of the content development of one group of five
students from a full class of 21 fourth and fifth grade students. With only one group of
students being analyzed.
2. The two unit intervention is only 13-lessons in duration. The observed changes in
student knowledge and performance may not be typical of longer TGA units.
3. The teacher involved in the study was selected, based on his knowledge of
theTGA, and experience with the participants. The instructional tasks utilized in the
units have been designed by Dr. Tristan Wallhead. Considerations must be taken into
account in interpreting the content development of students within this intervention to
the content development of the participants who are involved in the TGA by a teacher
new to the content, or inexperienced to the model.
Definition of Terms
Content Knowledge: Specific knowledge of the activity (tag rugby) required to perform the
instructional task (e.g., knowledge of how to pass the ball accurately to execute a 2v1 task).
Critical Didactic Incident (CDI): Classroom events or a set of activities linked with the
pedagogical content taught in which a significant failure in the teaching-learning process is
observed (Amade-Escot, 2005).
Didactics: A qualitative, quasi-ethnographic research methodology centered on situated social
contexts and how they shape what is intended to be taught and what is actually learned (Amade-
Escot, 2000a).
Didactic Contract: Negotiations made between teacher and students on content knowledge to be
taught and learned in a given task (Amade-Escot, 2000a).
Didactic System: The study of content and its function in the teaching-learning process. The
irreducible three-way relationship linking teacher, students, and the piece of knowledge taught
(Amade-Escot, 2005).
Didactic Transposition: “The phenomena of transformation, elaboration and reconstruction of the
knowledge to be taught” (Amade-Escot, 2000a, p. 87). In other words, how the teacher/ student
coach transforms and verbalizes the knowledge embedded in the task to the participants during
the teaching process.
Extrinsic Data Sources: Data obtained from the observer including lesson observation (Amade-
Escot, 2005).
Game: “A competitive situation where there are two approximately equal teams, each of which
has an opportunity to score” (Mitchell, Oslin, & Griffin, 2003, p. 26).
Information processing (IP): Theory from cognitive psychology provides a theoretical
framework for investigating domain-specific knowledge and contributes to ideas of what learners
know and how they learn cognitive aspects of movement activities (Kirk, 2005).
Intrinsic Data Sources: Data obtained directly from participants including pre- and post-lesson
interviews (Amade-Escot, 2005).
Lesson: A period of instruction for achieving learning goals.
Situated Learning Theory: From discussion of a situated learning perspective (Lave & Wenger,
1991), learning is an active process of engagement with socially organized forms of subject
matter, through perceptual and decision-making processes and the execution of appropriate
movement responses.
Tactical Transfer: A foundational principle that underlies the development of both the TGfU and
TGA is that games have common tactical problems and concepts.
Chapter 2
Review of Literature
This chapter will include an overview of Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) and
then how it has been adapted for the Tactical Games Approach (TGA). Following this overview,
a summary of the research findings on student learning within TGfU and TGA will be provided
including research comparing TGfU to a traditional skill-based approach to teaching games.
Potential theoretical frameworks for understanding student learning of tactics within TGA will
then be presented. Research that has examined the concept of skill and tactical transfer will then
be presented. To conclude the chapter, the theoretical framework of didactics will be explained
and a summary of the current findings of student learning from didactics research will be
discussed.
Teaching Games for Understanding
Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) was introduced by Thorpe and Bunker in
1982 as a method to conceptualize games teaching and learning. TGfU was developed because
of recognition that the traditional approach to teaching games neglected other crucial aspects of
games. Students spent the majority of their time practicing skills in isolation within inauthentic
settings which predominately made these skills disconnected from the games they were intended
to be performed. Through observations of the technical model of teaching games, Bunker and
Thorpe (1982) observed: (a) a large percentage of children achieving little success due to the
emphasis on performance, (b) skillful players who possessed inflexible techniques and poor
decision-making capacities, (c) performers who were dependent on the teacher/coach to make
their decisions, and (d) a majority of youngsters who left school knowing little about games. In
addition, Werner, Thorpe and Bunker (1996) noted that “skills (perhaps more appropriately
called techniques, in that they were usually practiced out of context) that were taught often did
not transfer to the game” (p.29).
Supporters of TGfU do not believe that students have to develop an advanced skill set to
have strategic and tactical awareness during game play. Bunker and Thorpe (1982) argued that if
this is a pre-requisite, many children will never be able to play the game because they will never
attain the skill level required of them. Thorpe and Bunker (1986) stated that the decision making
process, which occurs before the skill execution, makes games unique. If the students do not
understand the game, their ability to identify the correct skill to use in a given game situation is
impaired (Griffin et al., 1997). The TGfU model enables students to become skillful games
players through the utilization of modified versions of the parent games to develop students’
decision making, tactical awareness, and their skill execution in game play.
The original design of TGfU, conceptualized by Thorpe and Bunker (1982), was
comprised of six stages to develop component games players and improve performance during
game play. The first stage is the game. The teacher presents the students with a modified game
with a specific goal (e.g. maintaining possession) which allows students the opportunity to
identify the tactical problems that are to be solved in the particular game. The modified game
reduces the complexity and speed of the game to suit the developmental level of the students
therefore, students have a better opportunity to develop their decision making and improve their
skill. As students progress, the demands of the games increase and they gradually become more
complex as student learning improves.
The second stage is game appreciation. Students gradually learn to appreciate the
primary and secondary rules of each game. The students begin to understand that the rules the
teacher places on the games is there to improve their skills and tactical awareness (e.g. a small
sided 3 vs. 2 possession game makes it easier for the offense to maintain possession). They may
learn to recognize that the height of the net affects the pace of a game and that changing the
number of fielders makes it easier or more difficult to score runs and that changing the size of the
goal or target makes it easier or more difficult to score (Werner, Thorpe, & Bunker, 1996). Other
rules, such as time restrictions (holding the ball for 5 seconds) and restricting the space of play
will dictate the tactics that are expected to be utilized in a game.
Stage three is tactical awareness. Tactics are introduced to students through a gradual
progression utilizing simple games which allow students to develop their understandings of how
to move within a game setting. Within these simple games, basic movement concepts such as,
space and time, are introduced to students. This allows students to develop their tactical
awareness and progress into more complex tactical situations.
Stage four is making appropriate decisions. The games for understanding model also
emphasizes skill execution and game performance, but only after a student sees the need for a
particular kind of skill (Werner, Thorpe, & Bunker, 1996). For example, “A student who
recognizes the value of placing a shot deep in the court or dropping it short over the net will
more likely be ready to take time to learn the techniques for a clear, lob, or drop shot” (Werner et
al., p.29). Stage five is skill execution. Knowing how to execute is different from performance in
that the focus is limited to a specific skill or movement. Skill execution is always viewed in the
context of the game (Griffin & Patton, 2005). When students are ready for these skills within the
context of the game, technical instruction is given, but this is always at the performance level of
the children (Werner, Thorpe, & Bunker, 1996). The final stage is performance. The
performance of the student is based on the specific goals established by the game, lesson, or unit.
Ultimately, these specific performance criteria lead toward competent and proficient games
players (Griffin & Patton, 2005). Children may need help judging whether a performance is
correct/incorrect and in making appropriate decisions as to how performance may be improved
(Werner, Thorpe, & Bunker, 1996).
Thorpe and Bunker (1989) introduced four pedagogical principles associated with TGfU:
sampling, representation, exaggeration, and tactical complexity. Game sampling can provide
students with an opportunity to explore the similarities and differences among games (Thorpe,
Bunker, & Almond, 1984). Exposure to various game forms helps students learn to transfer their
learning from one game to another (Griffin & Patton, 2005). Representation involves
developing condensed games that contain the same tactical structure of the advanced form of the
game (e.g., reduced number of players, modified equipment) (p.3). The games classification
system described by Thorpe, Bunker, and Almond (1984) can facilitate the representation
process by providing a selection of various games with similar tactical problems rather than the
traditional selection of teaching one specific sport as a unit topic. Exaggeration involves
changing the secondary rules of the game to overstate a specific tactical problem (e.g., long and
narrow courts, narrow or wide goals). Tactical complexity is when the game matches the
developmental level of the students. Some tactical problems are too complex for novice players
to understand, but as students develop an understanding of tactical problems and appropriate
solutions, the complexity of the game can be increased. Therefore, all games and practices are
designed to be developmentally appropriate for the students.
Tactical Games Approach
TGfU was adapted by Griffin, Mitchell, and Oslin, (1997), into the Tactical Games
Approach (TGA). With the same goal of improving games players by improving decision-
making process, TGA provided a more simplified, prescriptive task sequence that would achieve
the aims of TGfU. TGA takes the six step TGfU model and modifies it to a four step approach
which follows (1) Game form, (2) Tactical awareness, (3) Skill execution and (4) Game form.
TGA encompasses representation and exaggeration, which were taken from the pedagogical
principles used in TGfU and utilizes modified games to exaggerate tactical problems that are
presented to students in the initial game. Within TGA the initial game is meant to be a modified
representation of the parent game and the exaggerated rules are placed to emphasize a particular
tactical problem to be solved. Tactical awareness (what to do?) is addressed after the initial
game. Questions are presented to the students concerning the tactical problem involved in the
initial game. These questions ask what the goal of the initial game was, and what the students
should do to achieve the goal of the game. These questions help students identify what they
ought to practice, thus leading to the practice phase of the lesson (skill execution) (Mitchell,
Oslin, & Griffin, 2003). During the practice phase the teacher describes and demonstrates the
relevant skills or movements to be performed and provides the students with teaching cues
related to these movements. Finally at the end of a TGA lesson, the students are placed back into
the initial game. This final game provides the students with an opportunity to perform what
they’ve learned and practiced within an authentic game environment.
The TGA demands teachers’ to have pedagogical content knowledge and subject matter
knowledge in order to construct developmentally appropriate games and practices that address
specific tactical problems. They must have a deep understanding of the game’s relationship of
time and space, cue perception, decisions needing to be made, and technique selection. TGA
requires the teacher to consider its learners prior experience and understanding about the game
and what game forms and tasks would best suit their capabilities. Students must come to realize
how the practice tasks they participate in are authentic and connected to the game.
Research on student learning within TGfU and TGA
Early research conducted on TGfU focused on comparing TGfU with other forms of
traditional technique-led teaching approaches. French, Werner, Rink, Taylor and Hussey (1996)
examined the effects of a 3-week unit of skill, tactical, or combined tactical and skill instruction
on badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Results of the 3-week study found the three
treatment groups demonstrated better performance than a control group on cognitive components
and skill components of game performance. There was no difference found between treatment
groups for game performance measures. French, Werner, Rink, et al., (1996) stated that
treatment differences in student performance may only emerge when instruction is conducted
over a longer period of time. This prompted French, Werner, Taylor, Hussey, and Jones (1996)
to continue the intervention to examine the effects of tactical, skill, and combined tactical and
skill instruction on student performance over a 6-week period of instruction. At the conclusion of
the 6-week intervention, the skill and tactical group exhibited better performance than the other
groups on measurements of game play (forceful shots, cooperative shots, game decisions, and
serve decisions). Although these differences were not statistically different, the skill group had a
10 to 15% advantage over the tactical group for forceful shots and cooperative shots both at 3
weeks and 6 weeks (French, Werner, Taylor, et al., 1996). The findings were therefore similar to
the results found in the 3-week French, Werner, Rink, et al. (1996) study. The skill group
performed as well as the tactical group in decision components of performance even though the
skill group did not receive specific instruction regarding tactics. These findings were attributed to
the interrelation of skill and tactics in badminton (correlations between forceful shots and game
decisions) and the ability to learn simple decision-making components from game play. The
tactical group achieved adequate levels of skill execution performance without any explicit
instruction involving badminton skills. The authors attributed this result to the type of tasks the
tactical group participated in during the study. The number of tactically designed tasks (hit down
to attack, long and short games tactics) used in this study also seemed to support the idea that
movement patterns for the smash, drop, and clear may have been implicitly elicited by these
tasks (French, Werner, Taylor, et al., 1996). The combination group in French, Werner, Rink, et
al. (1996), which received instruction in both skills and tactics, performed similar to other
treatment groups on game play measures. This group performed less effectively on the drop and
serve skill tests. The combination group had poorer performance on cognitive (game decisions)
and skill (forceful shots, cooperative shots, and contact execution) components of performance
than the skill or tactical groups at 3 weeks. The combination group did improve during the final 3
weeks of the study and achieved levels of performance that were similar to the tactical group
with respect to forceful shots, game decisions, contact execution, and cooperative shots.
Turner and Martinek (1999) continued research on comparing TGfU to a technique-based
approach within an invasion game (field hockey). They hypothesized that the TGfU group would
display better decision-making, a higher degree of declarative and procedural knowledge, and a
higher level of control and execution during game play than the control and technique groups.
Results of the study revealed that the TGfU group demonstrated higher levels of declarative and
procedural knowledge than those in the technique or control group. With regard to decision
making during game play, the students in the TGfU group made better passing decisions. While
there were no statistically significant differences for dribbling or shooting decisions, the TGfU
group scored higher on both these variables (dribbling decisions 23% higher and shooting
decisions 15% higher than the other groups) (Turner & Martinek, 1999). The authors attributed
these results to the fact that the students in the TGfU group participated in tasks that incorporated
passing in a game-like situation which improved their decisions during game play. Previous
research suggests that declarative and procedural knowledge underlies decision making during
game performance, and this contention was partially supported (Turner & Martinek, 1999). The
failure to see significant improvement in game execution for the TGfU group was explained by
the nature of sport skills required. As Magill (1993) speculated, the “what to do” and “how to do
it” distinction may be unique to complex motor skills, unlike verbal skills where knowing “what
to do” is enough. As a consequence, the student’s field hockey knowledge and decision making
may have been confounded by an inability to execute the response during the posttest game
(Turner & Martinek, 1999).
Holt, Strean and Bengochea (2002) have argued that the “versus” approach to comparing
tactical and skill-based approaches is a false dichotomy. They stipulate that it is founded upon
the flawed assumption that TGfU is mainly about teaching tactics and the traditional approach is
mainly about teaching technique, which is not true. “It is not about tactics versus technique and
which one is better but understanding that both tactics and techniques are important in
developing good games players” (Holt, Strean and Bengochea, 2002, p.262). Kirk (2005)
stipulated that TGfU was never been about the mere development of tactical awareness; but was
about developing good games players (Kirk, 2005). This theorization stimulated studies that
adopted a more qualitative description of the teaching-learning process that occurred within
TGfU and TGA approaches.
Nevett, Rovegno, Babiarz, and McCaughtry (2001) conducted a study that posed the
questions (a) Does children’s tactical passing decisions and their cutting actions change after a
12-lesson unit of TGA instruction? (b) Does children’s ability to send a catchable pass to a
teammate change after instruction? And (c) Does children’s skill in catching passes change after
instruction? Two coding instruments were developed to examine the two components of game
performance, decision-making and motor skill execution during invasion-game play. One
instrument captured the children’s passing decisions and passing skill execution while the second
one capture the children’s cutting or “off-the-ball” actions and catching-skill execution (see
Appendix 2) (Nevett, et al., 2001). The children’s passing decisions and passing-skill-execution
coding instrument was developed to evaluate the following aspects of the passer’s actions: (a)
passing decision judged good or poor; (b) the type of good decision or poor decision; (c) length
of the pass; and (d) the quality of the pass, if throw to a teammate (Nevett, et al., 2001). The
children’s cutting actions and catching motor-skills-execution coding instrument was developed
to evaluate the following aspects of two cutting teammates’ actions: (a) cutting action judged as
good or poor; (b) the type of good or poor action; (c) the direction of the movement made to
receive the pass; (d) the distance from the passer to receive the pass; and (e) catching ability, if a
pass was throw to them (Nevett, et al, 2001, p. 355). By the end of the study the students’ overall
scores for good decisions went up from 52.9% in the pretest to 66.6% in the posttest. In the
decisions categories, “good lead passes” increased overall from 23.9% during the pretest to
41.4% in the posttest. There was no significant difference between how much the high skilled
and low skilled players improved, with their improvements performing “good lead passes” being
similar. “Good straight cuts” performed by the students increased from 27.1% pretest to 41.7%
posttest overall. There was almost no difference between the low and high skilled students in
respect to improvement in “good straight cut” from pre- to post-test. There was also an increase
in “poor movement to traffic” from 7.3% to 14.8% and this finding was attributed to more
students moving and attempting cutting patterns but not necessarily in the correct direction.
Nevett, et al (2001) concluded that the key findings suggested that children’s decision-making
abilities can be improved over the course of a 12- lesson unit of instruction when the instruction
focused on simple game strategies. Second, they stated that there was a need to study the
interrelationship between performers when actually examining children’s decision-making and
motor skills during game performance. Game skills and decisions are not isolated events, and the
actions or decisions of another player often influences the success and/or decisions of a
teammate (Nevett, et al., 2001). Rovegno et al. (2001) summarized that, as the unit progressed
they saw fewer immature passes and cuts and more mature ones, that is, more lead passes, more
short passes, more appropriate holding, less appropriate holding, more cuts into open spaces,
more running forward, less jumping up and down and sliding sideways to cut, and more
acceleration. The children seemed to acquire cognitive knowledge of a catchable pass easily and
they could describe appropriate passing and cutting before they could perform these with
reasonable consistency (Rovegno et al. (2001).
In a more recent study using situated learning theory to explain students’ development of
tactical knowledge and performance within TGA, MacPhail, Kirk, and Griffin (2008) examined
how 6th graders learned to play invasion games. The authors again focused on the two aspects of
passing and moving into space to receive a pass within the context of a modified invasion game.
MacPhail et al (2008) found that as the TGA unit progressed the students were gradually able to
make more effective passes because of the improvement in off-the-ball movement. The students
were performing better movements and sharper cuts into open space allowing for more open
passing lanes. The target learner-players’ overall offensive game performance measures showed
improvement from .59 to .69. With respect to improvements in cue perception as a relational
skill there were improvements in offensive play including learning progression in terms of
appropriate use and quick recognition of the target hands cue in conjunction with sharp cuts into
space. Some of the performance analyses were, however, deemed to be unreliable because the
students, during final game play, did not play effective defense and left a lot of players on
offense open. MacPhail et al (2008) summarized that TGA recognizes implicitly, that the
modified game itself rather than the individual learner-players or teams should properly be the
unit of analysis in making judgments about learning progression. Game play is a dynamic event
that requires skill proficiency as well as tactical understanding.
Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding Student Learning in TGfU/TGA
As research on the TGfU approach to games teaching evolves, and as the debate
concerning technical versus tactical approaches to games subsided sport pedagogists begun to
move forward and explore new and important avenues of study (Kirk, 2005). Conducting
research with learning theories that underlie different teaching methods allows researchers,
teachers, and curriculum experts to create a foundation of knowledge. This broader view extends
beyond identifying direct links between what a teacher does and what a student learns to begin to
test the assumptions of different methodologies (Kirk, 2005). Applying a theory of learning to a
model like TGA may enable researchers to examine questions associated with the assumption of
TGA.
Information processing (IP) theory from cognitive psychology provides a theoretical
framework for investigating domain-specific knowledge and contributes to ideas of what learners
know and how they learn cognitive aspects of movement activities (Kirk, 2005). IP suggests that
humans represent the world through knowledge structures stored in long-term, intermediate, and
short-term memory (Shuell, 1986). Knowledge structures are formed by combining and
gathering forms of information and then relating it with the new knowledge to knowledge that
was already stored in a person’s long-term memory (Sternberg, 1984). Knowledge can be
broadly categorized as declarative or propositional, procedural, conditional, and strategic
(Alexander & Judy, 1988; Anderson, 1976). For the purpose of this study, declarative and
procedural knowledge will be discussed. Declarative or propositional knowledge includes
knowing about something, for example, being able to name player positions on soccer teams or
understanding that a goalkeeper’s functions differ from those of offensive players (Dodds,
Griffin, & Placek, 2001). Procedural knowledge involves how to do something, for example
understanding how to and being able to correctly position the body for sit-ups to maximize the
use of abdominal muscles (Dodds, Griffin, & Placek, 2001). French and McPherson (2004)
provided what they referred to as “best guess approaches” to sport-related games learning, which
are directly related to a TGA model. Teachers should initially design game-play situations so
that students must repeatedly make decisions. Next, teachers should use questions to gain insight
and information from the students about what they are processing or not processing in the game-
play situation. Much more research and development work is needed to understand how to
facilitate the development of game knowledge (Kirk, 2005). Teachers who know more about the
prior knowledge their students bring to class have better opportunities to provide a quality
learning environment that extends and deepens knowledge during instruction.
Situated learning has emerged as a potential framework with which to theorize and
analyze TGA (Kirk & MacPhail, 2002). Situated learning theory is conceptualized as one
component of a boarder constructivist theory of learning in physical education (Kirk &
MacDonald, 1998). Individuals are considered part of a holistic learning enterprise, not isolated
actors or participants. Students in a physical education setting are social learners because they
construct their knowledge through social interaction with their peers which is facilitated by the
teacher. From discussion of a situated learning perspective (Lave & Wenger, 1991), learning is
an active process of engagement with socially organized forms of subject matter, through
perceptual and decision-making processes and the execution of appropriate movement responses.
Individuals bring prior knowledge to learning episodes that contain a range of alternative
conceptions of a topic (MacPhail et al, 2008). The learner’s active engagement with subject
matter is embedded within and is constituted by layers of physical, sociocultural, and
institutional contexts. Using a situated learning perspective, Kirk and MacPhail (2002) modified
and extended aspects of the original TGfU model. In this view of the model they argued for
explicit attention to the learner’s perspective, game concept, thinking strategy, cue recognition,
technique selection, and skill development as the intersection of tactics and technique. Kirk and
MacPhail (2002) also stated that situated performance provides the learners with opportunities to
gain game play experiences (e.g., legitimate peripheral participation in games).
Transfer of Skills and Tactics
Skill Transfer. Perceptual motor and intellectual skills are typically distinguished by
specificity of transfer. Practiced skills generally carry over only narrowly to similar contents and
contexts and this phenomenon forms the basis for the identical elements theory of Thorndike
(1903). The main idea in identical elements theory is that transfer depends on having shared
elements in acquisition and transfer; the larger the number of such shared elements, the greater
the likelihood that transfer will occur (Rosenbaum, Carlson, & Gilmore, 2001). Thorndike
(1914) originally formulated a theoretical account for transfer. His identical elements theory of
transfer stated that all learning is specific and many situations appear to be general only because
the new situations/acts contain elements similar to elements of old situations/acts. Schmidt and
Young (1987) indicated that if the performance of task A is more effective after experience in
task B than it would have been after no experience in task B, then the skills of task A are
transferred to the skills involved in task B. There has been little research specifically examining
transfer between fundamental motor skills and sport specific skills (O’Keefe, Harrison, and
Smyth, 2007). Zebas and Johnson (1989) stated that fundamental motor patterns such as
running, jumping, kicking, striking, and throwing have traditionally been used as lead-up
activities for more complex skills, and the tennis serve can be considered an advanced form of
the throwing skill.
Couzner (1974), studied the transfer between two sport specific skills, highlighted the
fact that players of the various racquet sports often expressed the view that experiences in one
activity help or hinder the learning of another. Couzner’s (1974) results indicated that those who
had previous experience at tennis were better at table tennis, both before and after instruction.
The table tennis skills of the non-tennis group improved over the time of the instruction but did
not reach the skill level of the tennis group. Rose and Heath (1990) examined the contribution of
a fundamental overarm throw to the tennis serve. At the post-test there was difference between
the experimental group which underwent practice of the fundamental throw prior to being taught
the tennis serve and the control group which received no prior practice.
The concept of specificity of skill learning appears to contradict the principle of transfer
(O’Keeffe, Harrison, and Smyth, 2007). This concept is based on the notion that “humans store
specific well-learned motor acts in the form of neural patterns in the higher centers of the
nervous system” (p.92). It is only specific acts that are stored, and even generally similar
movement patterns will not correspond to the same program (Henry, 1958). Laboratory based
research has found very low correlations and very little transfer between a variety of what would
be seen to be highly similar motor tasks (Henry & Rogers, 1960). These findings lead to the
conclusion that motor skills are highly specific and that transfer between them, if it occurs, is
small (Schmidt & Young, 1987; Schmidt & Lee, 1999). Sharp (1992) saw a role for both
transfer of learning and specificity of skill learning. He discussed the notion that both the
transfer and specificity concepts are justified. As a learner becomes more skillful, techniques
become more distinctive and therefore the practice must be more specific (O’Keeffe, Harrison, &
Smyth, 2007). At the novice level on the other hand, it is possible to use basic skills such as
striking or throwing a ball in more than one sport with some degree of success (p.92).
In a study conducted by O’Keeffe and colleagues (2007), they investigated the concepts
of transfer and specificity in a practical physical education setting. The sequencing of skills so
that learners can benefit from the transfer of previous learning is central to the teaching and
learning of motor skills, whether between fundamental motor skills (e.g. running, jumping,
throwing, catching) and sport specific skills (Rink, 1998; Magill, 2004). The intervention
program consisted of six physical education classes, and the skills taught (fundamental overarm
throw, badminton overhead clear and the javelin throw) were based on the practice groups. The
control group carried on physical education classes as normal, but no skills involving the
overarm throwing action were taught. The findings of their study provided an example of
transfer taking place from the fundamental throw to the badminton clear and to the javelin throw,
but no transfer took place from the badminton clear the fundamental throw or the javelin throw.
The results show evidence for both transfer and specificity of learning. Transfer did occur from
the fundamental overarm throw to both the badminton overhead clear and the javelin throw.
Practice in the badminton overhead clear led only to improvement on that skill and did not
transfer to the fundamental throw or the javelin throw. It would seem that the more general
movements involved in foot, trunk and backswing components of the fundamental throw are the
similar aspects which transfer to badminton overhead clear and javelin throw while the action of
the forearm and humerous are more specific and less likely to transfer (O’Keeffe, Harrison, and
Smyth, 2007). They recommended that to make the skill learning process easier for the
teacher/coach and the student/athlete; it is recommended that practice of the relevant
fundamental skill be done initially to allow transfer of general actions and principles to a number
of specific skills.
Tactical Transfer. A foundational principle that underlies the development of both the
TGfU and TGA is that games have common tactical problems and concepts. Almond (1986)
proposed that these common structures allow for the classification of games, and more
importantly, provide a structure for students to understand common attributes among games that
could carry across similarly classified games. This classification system suggested that nearly all
games taught in a physical education program can be classified into one of four types: invasion,
net/wall, fielding/run-scoring, and target (Almond, 1986). For example, soccer, and basketball
are categorized as invasion games as they have similar offensive and defensive principles. Even
though the skills required to play these games are vastly different the tactical aspect of these
games are similar. The goal of this concept is that students can transfer knowledge and
performance in one game form to another and thus become more knowledgeable games players.
The possibility of tactical transfer might have implications for the organization of games
within the physical education curriculum, at both the primary and secondary where teachers can
build and transfer knowledge throughout children’s time in school, and provide justification for
the four game classifications. Almond (1986) suggested that the games component of a physical
education curriculum should seek to provide a range of games experiences in which children
have the opportunity to sample a balanced spectrum of activities. The game classification system
developed by Almond (1986) provides a basis for teachers to select a variety of games content,
providing breadth of experience, it remains possible and would be advantageous to organize the
games curriculum to allow for depth for learning, particularly if teachers are able to help learners
transfer an understanding of one game to aid performance in another (Mitchell & Oslin, 1999).
Despite this exciting premise, there remains a dearth of literature that has provided
empirical evidence to validate this claim. This lack of inquiry is surprising considering the
abundance of literature confirming transfer of cognition in other educational spheres. For
example, studies in literacy suggest that children are able to transfer learning strategies across
reading tasks and between subject areas such as reading, writing, English, and world geography
(Benson, 1997; McAloon, 1994). To date, only one study has been conducted to examine
students’ tactical transfer using TGA. Using the net games classification, Mitchell and Oslin
(1999) showed that there was significant improvement in the students’ decision-making from one
net game unit to another (badminton to pickleball) within TGA. Although providing much
needed impetus for the generation of empirical data to support the use of the game classification
system the use of a pre-post group design presented some methodological limitations.
Specifically, the GPAI provided insufficient information to separate tactical decision-making
from skill execution within net games. This limitation is problematic since many novice players
will develop decision-making abilities far in advance of skill acquisition (French & Thomas,
1987). Mitchell and Oslin (1999) recommended that future research should examine tactical
transfer in invasion games where tactical similarities are perhaps even greater than in the net
games category. Also within invasion games, off-the-ball movements are a large component of
effective game play and do not require coordinated controlled projection of a ball or object. This
dimension of the game performance may more closely align with changes in tactical cognition.
Didactics Research
Didactics was created from the alleged inadequate existing pedagogical research reported
on teaching practices. Didactic researchers postulated that teaching phenomena cannot be studied
or understood without specifically taking the content of the discipline into account. Didactics is a
system of analysis intended to capture and comprehend patterns of participant interaction and the
development of content knowledge occurring during the teaching-learning process. The “didactic
framework” is based on a triadic system where an irreducible three-way relationship links the
teacher, learner, and the knowledge taught (Brousseau, 1997). Within this system, the content
knowledge taught is the determinant characteristic used to understand the dynamics of the entire
teaching-learning process and hence is at the forefront of the relationship among teacher and
learner behaviors (Amade-Escot, 2000a).
In didactics research, content is viewed as context-specific and contingency staged;
meaning the knowledge learned by the students is a function of the explicit dynamics of the
teaching episode that includes the nature of the task, the student’s response to the task, and the
teacher behavior in the task (Amade-Escot, 2000a). Didactics studies confirm that the knowledge
to be taught and the knowledge actually taught undergo complex transformation processes at
various stages of selection and teaching, which fundamentally distinguishes this knowledge from
its origins in academic knowledge (Amade-Escot, 2000a). The effects this transformation has on
teacher practices is staged based on the three scales of research (macro, meso, and micro)
identified by Amade-Escot (2000a). At the macro level, a materialization of academic knowledge
and social practices in schools are examined. At the meso level, researchers study how teachers
select, interpret, and plan the curriculum for the students. Finally, at the micro level, studies are
concerned with the implementation of knowledge in the classroom. At the micro level, the
objective is to describe and explain the way content is embedded in instructional tasks and
brought into play during the dynamic teacher-student interaction through negotiations
(alterations made between the teacher and the student, often implicit, about the knowledge taught
in a given situation).
Three models of didactic transposition emerge at the physical education level of analysis.
The first model is centered on reproducing technique. The second model, “presents a set of
principles of action and action rules drawn from a more complex level of activity” (Amade-
Escot, 2000a, p. 91). In the third model, “students discovering operative action rules according to
the context, with the problem set up at the students’ level” (Amade-Escot, 2000a, p. 91). TGA
fits into the third model as students are learning what tactical skills and strategies are required
within specific game situations. During these three models of didactic transposition, negotiations
arise between students and the teacher. The negotiation among students and instructional
environment, and teacher about the knowledge to be taught and learned is called the didactic
contract (Brousseau, 1986).
Didactic research supports the idea that there may be misalignment between the intended
content to be taught and the actual content learned even when there is no conflict within either
the managerial or student social system. The modifications of the content embedded in tasks
takes place when the students modify the presented tasks through subtle and implicit student
behavior, which transforms the original presented stated task (Amade-Escot, 1999). These
modifications and misalignments are a result of teacher and student negotiations that impact the
content taught and actually learned. According to Amade-Escot (2000b) these negotiations are
achieved by: (a) students varying the initial conditions of the stated task, (b) students revising the
critical components of the task, (c) students directing the teacher’s attention towards unrelated or
unexpected content, and (d) students using prior inbuilt knowledge ahead of attempting new
motor skill. The outcome of these negotiations and alterations within the original tasks cause the
modification of didactic contract between the content intended to be taught by the teacher and
the content actually learned by the student. A didactic contract is the result of these tacit and
implicit negotiations among students, instructional environment, and a teacher about the
knowledge to be taught and learned. These modifications are important in the understanding of a
student’s reflected efforts to accomplish the objectives of the tasks which may appear to be
exceptionally critical to content development (Amade-Escot, 2000b). These critical breaches in
the didactic contract are known as critical didactic incidents (CDI’s) and are the crucial concern
of the didactic research methodology.
Didactic Research in Physical Education
Four major themes have emerged from research on the didactic system: “(a) knowledge
at the origin of the content to be taught, (b) teachers’ didactic conceptions (c) students’
conceptions, and (d) didactic interactions in class” (Amade-Escot, 2000a, p. 90). Academic
knowledge, in physical education, is not developed the same way as in other educational
disciplines. In physical education it is built by trial and error and takes various elements into
account: (a) the evolution of sport as a social practice, (b) the custom of professional practice,
and (c) the complex interplay in sport between scientific knowledge and empirical knowledge
(Leziart, 1997). Observation of didactic interactions in the classes with volunteer teachers
recognized for their experience and the decoding of their interventions shows that content is
transmitted in the form of instructions for execution during students’ motor performance. More
often than not, these instructions are general forms taken from technical descriptions (sometimes
obsolete) that are poorly suited to the students’ level of motor development (Amade-Escot,
2000a). The teachers’ interventions are mainly aimed at reducing difference between the
student’s performance and the standardized model taken as a reference (Amade-Escot, 1993;
Marsenach, et al., 1991; Marsenach et al., 1993; Marsenach & Merand, 1987). The TGA
emphasizes modifying tasks not to just reduce the demands on the students but to make the tasks
and games developmentally appropriate so that the students have an opportunity to perform
effectively to promote learning.
Other research findings in the didactic program show teachers reduce requirements of the
tasks, when difficulties arise, to ease the student focus to only a few surface features. This can
cause a result of three modifications: (1) students changing the initial conditions of the task
causing critical moments in the teaching process, (2) teacher modification of the task before the
students have time to adapt, or (3) the students move onto a new task without developing any
consistency in previous tasks (Amade-Escot, 2000a). These results are all negotiations of the
didactic contract and example of critical didactical incidents, or CDIs. Due to these constraints,
the process of transformation and elaboration of the content seems to appear during a situated-
teaching context.
Chapter 3
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to utilize a defined didactic methodology to examine the
development and transfer of invasion game tactical knowledge and performance of a team of five
Elementary students participating in two consecutive units of TGA. The study described and
analyzed how the students understood and performed invasion game offensive tactical content
within a team handball unit followed by an ultimate frisbee unit. A qualitative critical didactical
incident (CDI) research methodology was used to analyze student tactical content knowledge
development and transfer (Amade-Escot, 2000a). The study design, theoretical framework,
setting, participants, and procedures are presented in this chapter. An overview of the
methodologies for data collection, treatment, and analysis are also provided.
Study Design
This study was descriptive and exploratory in nature (Marshall & Rossman, 1995) as the
objective of this research was to better capture and comprehend the patterns of tactical content
knowledge that evolved across two consecutive invasion game units (Griffin, Mitchell, & Oslin,
1997). A case study approach was utilized to provide a rich description of students’ tactical
knowledge and performance development, and the transfer of this content across similar invasion
games. A qualitative paradigm was utilized to identify commonalities of student content
understanding, and to clarify relationships between teacher behaviors and the implication the
behaviors have on the students (Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Specifically, a qualitative didactic
research methodology (Amade-Escot, 2005) was used to describe the dynamics of the teaching-
learning process that occurred during two consecutive invasion game units taught using the TG.
Within the didactic research methodology it is assumed that the knowledge to be taught is the
salient variable in the teaching-learning process (Amade-Escot, 2000a).
Setting
The study was conducted at a public school within Albany County School District One in
Laramie, Wyoming. The school is located in the College of Education building on the University
Wyoming campus. The school currently enrolls approximately 225 Kindergarten through 9th
grade students. There are approximately 43 students enrolled in 4th and 5th grade. About 14
percent of the students enrolled in the 4th/5th grade are of Non-White descent. Approximately 12
percent of the 4/5 students have an IEP and receive special education services. The regular
physical education program includes meeting four times per week, with each lesson being 30
minutes in duration. Units of work normally last for 2-3 weeks, or 8-12 lessons. Students in K-9
are also involved in extra PE classes that include wellness activities such as skiing,
snowboarding, and weekly swimming.
Participants
The participants in the study were an intact class of 21, 4th and 5th grade students (11
males and 10 females) and their physical education teacher. The teacher was selected based on
his desire to collaborate on a research project regarding the TGA to teaching sport-based
physical education. The teacher has experience utilizing the TGA and is interested in the
outcomes of the research questions posed within the present study. Of the intact 4th/5th grade
class, one team of five students was the target of the data collection procedure. The target team
of students was heterogeneous in terms of gender and skill level. The selection criteria for the
target team of students were based on return of parental consent for involvement in the study,
student attendance history and teacher knowledge of heterogeneity of ability. These parameters
were critical to the ongoing rich description of the development and transfer of student invasion
game tactical content knowledge over two units of instruction. The team selected to be the focus
of this study was comprised of three males and two females. The target group is comprised of all
5th graders except for one female, who is a 4th grader.
Procedures
The two invasion games unit of the TGA lasted a total of four weeks and consisted of 13-
lessons (7 lessons of team handball and 6 lessons of ultimate frisbee). All students within the
class were informed of the nature of the TGA and the data collection protocol. A detailed outline
for each unit is presented in Appendix B and C. The unit plan, unit goal and rationale, and
lesson plans were designed by Dr. Tristan Wallhead. At the conclusion of both units, the students
were expected to be able to consistently identify and perform maintaining possession of the ball,
attacking the goal and creating and defend space while participating in a 5v5 game of team
handball and ultimate frisbee. The first class meeting was used to introduce the study and all of
its requirements to participate, along with information about the consent and curricular goals of
the TGA. Following the introduction, the teacher began the management phase of the lesson
which was separating the class into teams, establishing home base areas, and reviewing safety
protocols. The first three lessons of the units focused on the tactical problem of maintaining
possession. For example, the first lesson began with a modified 3v2 possession game in which
the students were presented tactical problem of maintaining possession as a team. The game was
modified so that the offense had an offensive overload situation where the students should
always have an open support player to pass to. After the modified game, the teacher asked the
students prepared questions that related to the tactical problem presented by the modified game.
These questions were designed to lead the students to the solutions to the tactical problem
presented in the initial game. For example; within lesson 1 the students were placed in a triangle
passing practice to aid them on practicing the passing and catching skills necessary in order to
maintain possession. In the practice, the students come to realize that they must use the
appropriate passes (chest or overhand) and maintain proper positioning (triangle) in order to
maintain possession during the 3v2 possession game. Finally, the students participated in the
modified game once again to reinforce the skills just learned in practice. This lesson format was
followed throughout the units. Lessons four and five emphasized the tactic of maintaining
possession while moving forward and during restarts. Lesson 6 included the students learning the
tactic of attacking the goal, including when and how to shoot in team handball. The focus of
lesson 7 was defending space where the students participated in an initial 5v5 attacking game,
then after questions prompted by the teacher, went into a 2v2 defensive practice.
The ultimate frisbee unit followed a similar format to the team handball unit with the
exception being the ultimate Frisbee was 6 lessons instead of 7. Ultimate frisbee has some rules
that are different from team handball for example; to score a person must cross an end line with
possession of the Frisbee. Therefore, the goal the students are attacking is much larger and
harder to defend than a team handball goal. The lesson format described for the team handball
unit was followed throughout the ultimate frisbee. The first two lessons of the ultimate Frisbee
unit focused on maintaining possession of the frisbee. The third lesson focused on maintaining
possession while moving forward and the fourth lesson addressed the tactical problem of
advancing to score. The fifth lesson was focused on defending space and lesson 6 was the final
session of the unit and which was exclusively 5v5 game play.
Data Collection Methodology
The detection of CDIs within the didactic framework allows for a comprehensive analysis
of the student activity obtained through observation and comparison against the teacher’s a
priori lesson intentions. In the subsequent section the methodological principles of the didactic
observation, where CDIs occur will be discussed and an outline of the CDI method of data
collection and analysis that was utilized in this study will be presented.
A CDI concerns an event, which is defined as a set of activities linked with the content
intended to be taught and learned in a task, in which students and teacher struggle to construe a
common meaning and achieve their own but interrelated goals (Amade-Escot, 2000a). Amade-
Escot (2005) recognized four key rules to be considered when observing didactic events, stating
(1) didactic observation focuses on the content knowledge really taught and perhaps learned, and
its ongoing evolution during everyday classroom interactions and implicit negotiations; (2) data
must be collected on the three components of the system (teacher activity, students’ activities,
and content knowledge embedded in the process), and trustworthiness and validity have to be
founded on constant triangulation between these different sources; (3) interviews with the
different participants and the observations of their activities in context must be collectively
analyzed consider the intrinsic (student) and extrinsic data (researcher), and this mixed method
reflects a didactic stance between two analytical point of view; (4) interpretation of the data is
conducted by confronting the priori analysis and the posteriori analysis of what is at stake in the
process.
Chronology of Data Collection. The chronology of the didactic data collection
methodology utilized in this study was (1) an a priori interview with the teacher prior to the
lesson (related to the teacher’s intent for upcoming tasks); (2) brief interviews with the student
during tasks; (3) a posteriori observation and field notes; and (4) a posteriori interview with the
teacher after the lesson.
A Priori Analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to clarify what content knowledge is
embedded in the task and its relation to the didactic intent of the teacher (Amade-Escot, 2005).
This was conducted through a short semi-structured pre-lesson interview with the teacher and
provides the researcher with a source of intrinsic data for the researcher to have an understanding
of the intended learning objectives of the tasks to be taught in the lesson. The a priori analysis
also helps the researcher determine the kind of response or strategy that is expected from the
students and what other responses or strategies might appear (Amade-Escot, 2005).
During the lesson, the participating students were briefly interviewed by the researcher,
during off-task rotations, using a set of pre -determined questions designed to understand what
the student perceptions of what was expected to be accomplished, what content was understood
within the intended tasks, and what was the expected learning and performance outcomes from
the teacher. These short interviews identified any mismatch or maladjustment in the negotiation
of the task. Appendix H presents the questions posed to the students during the tasks. The
purpose of the short interviews was to support (after triangulation with students’ behavior and
activity in the task) any interpretation that provides information about the breaches in the
didactic contract (Amade-Escot, 2000b).
A Posteriori Analysis. All 13 lessons were videotaped using a digital camcorder. The
camera was set up in the gymnasium and mounted on a tripod to allow for focus on the target
team during all tasks of the intervention. The camcorder was used to capture the actions of the
participants throughout the entire lesson and to capture the evolving didactic contract during the
TGA learning tasks. The teacher’s verbal behavior was monitored using a small cordless
microphone that was worn during the lessons. The videotape data source was used to describe
student task performances in relation to intended content within the units. These observational
data provide the primary information used for the didactical analysis of the teacher-learning
process within the tasks of the units.
After each lesson, an a posteriori interview was conducted with the teacher to ascertain
their perceptions of student learning and performance within the lesson. The interview allowed
the teacher the opportunity to express their thinking about what occurred during the lesson
regarding the content taught, the students’ activities, what they achieved in those activities, and
their interpretation of critical moments throughout the lesson. These interviews were conducted
in a private area so that the teacher had no apprehension from discussing freely their
interpretation of the lesson. The post-lesson interview questions posed to the teacher regarding
the learning during tasks is presented in Appendix G.
Data Treatment
A verbatim transcription was made of all interviews and verbal behaviors recorded within
the lesson. The observation data (verbal interactions and actions) were chronologically
transcribed in a matrix display (Miles & Huberman, 1984) allowing the tracking of the
development and evolution of the content actually taught and learned. The transcript of verbal
interactions of each participant outlined the sequence of each episode and allowed the researcher
to track the verbal interactions of the teacher and students. All of the participants’ attempts at the
task were recorded in relation to the responses and tactical behaviors anticipated from the a priori
analysis. The treatment of the data included identifying CDIs or critical breaches in the didactic
contract. The coding instruments that were utilized to examine the components of tactical
decision-making and motor skill execution during game play was developed by Nevett et al
(2001). This instrument captures the children’s passing decisions and passing skill execution and
the children’s cutting or “off-the-ball” actions and catching-skill execution. A decision-making-
unit (DMU) was defined as a start of a sequence of play when the player gains control of the ball
and was in a good position to make a pass. A DMU sequence encompassed a 4 second time and
ended when either a pass was made and a teammate caught or did not catch the ball, or the pass
was stolen by an opponent. The second instance, when a DMU ended, was if the passer held the
ball for more than four seconds without passing the ball. The passing decisions and passing-skill-
execution coding instrument was developed to evaluate the following aspects of the passer’s
actions: (a) passing decision judged good or poor; (b) the type of good decision or poor decision;
(c) length of the pass; and (d) the quality of the pass, if throw to a teammate (Nevett, et al.,
2001). The children’s cutting actions and catching motor-skills-execution coding instrument was
developed to evaluate the following aspects of two cutting teammates’ actions: (a) cutting action
judged as good or poor; (b) the type of good or poor action; (c) the direction of the movement
made to receive the pass; (d) the distance from the passer to receive the pass; and (e) catching
ability, if a pass was throw to them. Both of these instruments were used together to code the
game play performance of the students. Interpretations of the CDIs were based on continuous
comparison techniques among the extrinsic (observational) and the intrinsic (interview) data
sources within the chronology of events during the evolution of the content.
Reliability of CDI Identification. A joint observation was made by the primary researcher
and an expert in the didactic protocol on the interpretation of Marsenach et al (1991) to verify the
criteria for a CDI was met. The boundaries of specific learning tasks, within a sample lesson,
were acknowledged and documented along with noted reoccurring patterns of emergence of the
didactic contract. Once the expert confirmed the sample lesson’s interpretation of CDI criteria,
the primary researcher primarily analyzed the following identification of CDI’s in the rest of the
lessons.
CDIs were coded by analyzing one trial of a task at a time of the participant execution
relative to the outcome of the task (e.g. cutting patterns in order to get open to receive a pass)
and the participant execution of the content elements essential in a successful performance of a
task (e.g. demonstrating critical cutting skill elements). In addition, post-trial feedback
statements by the teacher were categorized related to specific task elements. The reliability of
analysis of CDIs was achieved through an inter-rater reliability of coding for the criteria used to
determine success/failure of each task trial according to critical skill elements determined by
both the primary researcher and expert instructor during practice tasks.
Chapter 4
Results
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the TGA in developing and
transferring 5 students’ tactical knowledge and performance across two invasion games in
physical education. A didactic qualitative research methodology was utilized for data collection
purposes for interpretation of teacher and student intentions and student content knowledge and
performance development during the TGA. The following specific research questions were
addressed:
Research Questions
1. How did student tactical knowledge and performance of invasion games evolve within
team handball taught using the TGA and how did this performance transfer to an ultimate
frisbee unit? What were the differences between tactical content that was intended to be
taught and content actually learned and transferred by the students?
2. What characteristics of teacher and student behavior within the didactic milieu of the
TGA shaped the tactical content knowledge and performance actually learned and
transferred by students?
To examine student invasion game performance learned across the two invasion game
TGA units participants’ game play performance for each intended content elements across the 12
lessons was coded. The results of these performances analyses are provided in the following
section. The data are organized by intended content learning goals for the two units. The goals
included performance of on-the-ball and off-the-ball offensive tactics. As neither game permitted
the object carrier to travel with the object, the students were expected to maintain possession of
the object by making appropriate decisions on who to pass to and what type of pass to utilize
within a 4 second decision making unit. If there was no teammate that was open for a pass at an
appropriate distance or space then the student in possession was expected to hold the object
longer than 4 seconds to find a teammate and play an appropriate pass. As offensive support
players, the participants were expected to make appropriate cutting actions in order to receive a
pass to maintain possession or to create space in attack.
Passing Decision Making (1)
The content of passing decision making was intended to facilitate the participants’
appropriate decision making of when to make the pass to a teammate. This on-the-ball tactic is a
critical component of invasion games and was introduced at the beginning of the team handball
unit and continued throughout the ultimate frisbee unit. An appropriate pass decision had to meet
one of four criteria, 1) elicited a good scoring attempt; 2) good back pass to reset the offense; 3)
good lead pass or advancing pass; 4) good hold the ball when no teammate is open. An
inappropriate pass decision had to meet one of four criteria; 1) poor forced pass to a covered
teammate; 2) poor pass to a too close teammate; 3) poor long pass (long bomb pass); 4) poor
holding the ball when a teammate was in good position. The game play percent success rate of
participant performance of passing decision making is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Participant percentage appropriate passing decision making during game play performance across team handball and
ultimate Frisbee lessons
The participants began the team handball unit with a 62 percent appropriate passing decision
making success rate during game play. The main contributor to the participants’ inconsistent
success during game play was attempting passes that were to a teammate who was too close or to
a teammate that was too far away. A steady increase in game play passing decision making
success occurred after lesson 3 during the TGA team handball unit. The first four lessons of the
TGA team handball unit were focused on maintaining possession of the ball and appropriate
decisions of choice of pass type, when to pass and who to pass to. After lesson 2, there was a
reduction in appropriate responses and this coincided with the format of the game which changed
from a non-directional possession game to a directional attacking game. The students made
poorer decisions related to who or when to pass because they wanted to score as quickly as
possible. Though the focus of lessons 5, 6, and 7 was not maintaining possession, the students
continued to improve in their game play appropriate passing decision making throughout the
team handball unit. By the completion of the team handball unit the participants had an 89
percent success rate for appropriate passing decision making during games. The participants
were successful by the end of the unit because they were able to identify who was open quickly
and timed the pass to the open teammate effectively.
The start of the ultimate frisbee TGA unit elicited an immediate decline in percentage of
appropriate pass decision making. Even though the ultimate frisbee unit followed the same task
sequence as the team handball unit with maintaining possession being the focus of the first three
lessons there was still a decline in appropriate passing decision making. The students never
reached the same level of success for passing decision making in ultimate frisbee that they
reached in team handball. The students altered their passing decision making based on the flight
of the frisbee. Unlike team handball, where the students had success with making appropriate
decisions by choosing to do quick short passes to open teammates, they often chose to hold the
frisbee when teammates were open and attempted longer passes over defenders that often carried
too far and high for the receiver to catch. Lesson 11 showed the highest percentage of success for
game play passing decision making during the ultimate frisbee unit. During lesson 11, the
students took part in the 5v5 attacking game and during those games the students were more
successful in their passing decision making because they made decisions similar to team
handball. The students passed the frisbee quickly and appropriately to a teammate who was in an
open passing lane and they did not make poor decisions on when to hold the frisbee for longer
than 4 seconds. A pattern of increase in appropriate passing decision making was observed
within both the team handball and ultimate Frisbee TGA units but the performance of this
variable decreased to below 70 percent success rate by the end of the ultimate frisbee TGA unit.
Quality of Pass (2)
The participants’ quality of pass was coded during game play to evaluate the execution of
a good pass that could be received by their teammate. The participant’s pass was coded as a
good pass if it was a catchable pass and directed between the receiver’s knees to just above the
head, arms length to the side and with appropriate force on the pass. The participant who passed
the object was not coded as inappropriate if their teammate did not catch a catchable pass.
Although passing and catching are relational skills, for the purpose of coding the quality of the
catch was not taken into account in judging the pass quality. Figure 2 displays the change in
individual participant’s percentage of success at making a catchable pass to a supporting
teammate during game play performance.
Figure 2. Participant percentage of appropriate quality passes to a supporting teammate during game play performance.
Throughout the two TGA units there was fluctuation by all participants on the quality of
pass they made to their teammates during game play. At the start of the team handball TGA unit
the group averaged 60 percent successful catchable passes and there was a steady increase in the
quality of pass during lessons 3 to 5 reaching a high of 71 percent before dropping to 68 percent
during lesson 6. The participants completed the team handball TGA unit at an 83 percent
success rate. Jessica and Cassandra reached 100 percent success rate during the team handball
TGA unit. Jessica’s 100 percent success rate was explained twice by her low opportunities to
respond during game play. She often sat herself out when there were an odd number of players or
chose to play goalkeeper during those lessons and therefore had less OTR than her teammates.
Cassandra reached 100 percent success rate during lessons 2 and 4 and reached 94 percent
success during lesson 3. The focus during those lessons was maintaining possession and
Cassandra made a lot of short, quick, and accurate catchable passes during game play in those
lessons which contributed to her success.
The ultimate frisbee unit began with the participants having a 73 percent success rate of
quality of pass which was an immediate decrease from the end of the team handball unit.
Lessons 8 through 10 had decreases in performance with the low being lesson 10 which was 45
percent success rate for the quality of pass. The ultimate frisbee TGA unit ended with the
participants’ success rate being 66 percent for the quality of pass during game play. The only
increase in success rate was during lesson 11 where the participants managed to make more
catchable passes to their teammate because of the passing decisions and type of passes they
chose. Similar to the team handball TGA unit, the participants had difficulty executing a
catchable pass to their teammate during game play throughout the frisbee unit. The participants
often threw high arching passes that were very inaccurate and well above the intended receivers
head. The participants also threw passes that were easily defended or intercepted. Leonard and
Adam maintained the highest rate of success throughout the ultimate frisbee TGA unit. They
began the ultimate frisbee TGA unit at 90 percent success rate and decreased during lessons 9
and 10 before leveling out at 83 percent by lessons 11 and 12. This was a result of Adam and
Leonard doing well with the pivot to facilitate open passing lanes and they were the most
consistent with the passing technique of the frisbee which allowed them to throw more catchable
passes.
Cutting Action (3)
Cutting action is a critical component for maintaining possession and attacking the goal
in both team handball and ultimate frisbee. The content was presented and practiced during the
lessons 3, 4, and 5, of both units and was taught specifically through the pass and move task, 2v1
task, pass and move forward task, and 2v2 end zone task. Four criteria for appropriate cutting
actions and five criteria for inappropriate cutting actions were utilized for coding. An appropriate
cutting action had to meet 1 of the 4 criteria which was, 1) good straight line cut in open space;
2) good sharp V-cut to open space; 3) good fake cut into open space (use body/head movement
only to lose defender and then run into open space); 4) good no-movement needed (already in
space or unguarded). An inappropriate cutting action had to meet 1 of the 5 criteria which was,
1) poor standing/hopping/jumping in place while covered, walking with no purpose; 2) poor
curved cuts to escape defender (easily guarded); 3) poor moving into traffic or next to another
teammate; 4) poor standing too long next to the endzone/goal; 5) poor running away from passer
(no support for teammate with the ball, could be standing too far way to start DMU). The
change in individual participant’s percentage of success in game play cutting is shown in figure
3.
Figure 3. Participant percentage successes of appropriate cutting actions of support players during game play performance.
The data presented in figure 3 shows an increase in the overall performance of cutting
action during game play by the end of the team handball TGA unit and a decrease in
performance at the end of the ultimate frisbee TGA unit. The largest decrease in performance in
the team handball unit occurred during lesson 4 where passing and moving forward task was
introduced to the participants during the team handball TGA unit. The participants made poor
running away from the passer cutting action, poor standing/hopping/jumping in place while
covered, and poor moving into traffic or next to another teammate. During lessons 5, 6, and 7
the overall performance of the participants for cutting action steadily increased and finished at 73
percent appropriate by the end of the team handball TGA unit. This result is attributed to the
emphasis on the participants making a good cut after passing or understanding when, where, and
how to cut to be in good open space to receive a pass.
Although there was improvement in their cutting actions during team handball unit, often
participants, like Nathan, would choose to stand while being guarded by an opponent while in
other lessons his standing was advantageous because no one guarded him. Cassandra was
another participant who was inconsistent in demonstrating good cutting actions throughout the
team handball TGA unit. During lessons 2 and 4 she had a success rate of 31 and 33 percent
because she often made poor cutting actions too close to another teammate or stood while she
was being guarded. Cassandra did improve her cutting actions after lesson 4 as she more
consistently made good straight line cuts into open space after making a pass or to receive a pass.
Leonard was the most successful and consistent at making good cutting actions during the team
handball TGA unit. Other than lesson 4 he did not fall below 85 percent success rate during
game play performance. Leonard consistently demonstrated good straight line cuts into open
space and good sharp “V” cuts to open space throughout the unit.
There was an immediate decrease in overall performance by the participants at the start of
the ultimate frisbee TGA unit. During lessons 9 and 11, the participants reached the same rate of
success as they achieved at the end of the team handball TGA unit. The participants executed
more straight line cuts into open space after passing the frisbee. Additionally, they executed
more straight line cuts consistently in order to receive a pass to help maintaining possession or
create space in attack during lessons 9 and 11. This was a critical component to being successful
during game play in both team handball and ultimate frisbee. Lesson 10 and the last lesson 12
did see the participants’ overall performance for cutting actions decrease to 52 percent success
rate. Lesson 10 introduced the 3v3 attacking game during the ultimate frisbee which switched
the focus strictly from maintaining possession to maintaining possession and creating space to
attack. This caused difficulty for the passer which in turn had an effect on the off-the-ball
movements of the support players. Often the frisbee carrier would keep possession for too long
and consequently the support player performed poor cutting actions the longer they went without
receiving a pass. Another impact on the participants’ cutting action performance was the frisbee
carriers’ lack of performance of a quality pass (Figure 3). If their teammate could not execute a
quality pass they often ran too close to receive the frisbee carrier and executed a hand off.
Additionally, it often led to the participants bunching closer together which led to poor cuts into
traffic, poor standing, or moving with no purpose. Individuals cutting patterns were inconsistent
throughout the ultimate frisbee TGA unit as a result of the problems. Leonard decreased in
cutting action performance from lesson 8 through lesson 10 before increasing performance
during lessons 11 and 12. He never reached the same level of success as in team handball, which
was a function of the inconsistent on-the-ball performance during the ultimate frisbee TGA unit.
Leonard made many cutting actions too close to teammates to receive hand offs in order to be in
possession of the frisbee or moved with no purpose because his teammates inability to give him a
quality pass. Adam, Jessica, and Cassandra only had one lesson of increase in cutting action
success and the rest of the lessons they decreased in performance. Jessica often opted to move
with no purpose or moved poorly into traffic because participants began bunching together.
Cassandra often demonstrated poor cutting actions too close to teammates to receive the frisbee
by a hand off and she would stand poor while being guarded. Adam was one of the participants
that lost interest during the ultimate frisbee TGA unit which impacted his motivation to
demonstrate appropriate cutting actions. Leonard was the only participant that increased
performance by the end of the ultimate frisbee TGA unit.
Research Question 2
The second purpose of the study was to examine characteristics of the teacher and student
behavior within the didactic milieu of the TGA which shaped the tactical content knowledge and
performance actually learned and transferred by students. A framework for the didactic
transposition of content knowledge intended to be taught and actually learned during the learning
tasks of the TGA units can be found in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Didactic Transposition of Content within the TGA.
Teacher Elaboration of Content Knowledge to the Participants
Teacher demonstration and explanation. Patterns of data across episodes revealed that
the teacher’s initial explanation and demonstration of intended content consistently aligned with
the a priori didactic intent of the episode. For example, during team handball unit the teacher
articulated the need for the students to pass quickly and being ready to receive the ball:
We are continuing the tactic of maintaining possession and we are going to do that
through the initial possession game to lead off the lesson. And then we are going to lead
up to our first practice task of pressure passing getting the kids pass quickly and of course
receive a ball (Teacher, pre-lesson interview, team handball lesson 2).
The teacher provided a complete demonstration and explanation of the pressure passing
task which emphasized the a priori didactic intent to pass quickly. For example, while
demonstrating and explaining the task to the participants there was an emphasis on passing
quickly and receiving quickly:
Now, while we are doing the pressure passing drill I want us to have our hands ready and
elbows bent so when I receive a pass I can pass the ball quickly and accurately back to
my teammate using the chest pass (Teacher, video observation, lesson 2).
The teacher’s consistent alignment of the a priori didactic intent and the demonstration
and explanation of the practice tasks was also demonstrated during the 2v1 pass task. The
didactic intent of the 2v1 pass task was for the receiver to make an appropriate cut (creating
space) using, the plant, razor, run technique, along a line to receive a pass from the offensive
passer while being defended. The teacher provided an explanation and performed a
demonstration of the tasks. Specifically, the teacher demonstrated the receiver’s role and
explained the role of the defender and passer:
My job is to plant, razor, run to get into open space to receive a pass…..Nathan you will
be playing warm cooperative defense at arm’s-length…you are just going to shadow me
(after the teacher performs a plant, razor, run to receive a pass)….ok remember when
Leonard throws me a pass he has see that target from me (shows that hands are ready to
receive a pass) (Teacher, video observation, lesson 3).
The teacher’s demonstration and explanations were consistently aligned with the content
intended to be taught. This teacher intent was also reflected in students’ interpretations of the
2v1 task. One student articulated, “We are to plant, razor, run. So, move into space quickly”
The lessons of the team handball TGA unit were designed to scaffold new team handball
knowledge upon content from previous lessons. The teacher often developed this scaffolding
process by presenting new information as a continuation of previously presented content. For
example, the didactic intent of the teacher during lesson 4 was to continue to work on
maintaining possession and moving into space forward towards the goal. The teacher clearly
articulated this scaffolding during the pre-lesson interview:
What skills of team handball do you want the students to improve upon today?
Today we are going to continue to work on maintaining possession and doing that
through moving quickly into open space and moving forward towards the goal
How do you think the students will do in these practices?
I think they will do pretty well based on what I’ve seen. I definitely think there will be a
potential when we start attacking the goal for some kids to still be focused on completing
passes or moving into space, which is good if they are moving into space but, also
emphasizing they need to go forward too with that attacking the goal drill? (Teacher, pre-
lesson interview, team handball lesson 4).
The influence of knowledge scaffolding of the tasks and alignment between the content
intended to be taught and the content actually taught can be demonstrated during the in-task
interview with the student:
What was the goal of this practice? To maintain possession. Maintain possession by
doing what? Moving fast. What direction are you going? Forward. What should you be
moving towards? The goal. How do you think you did in that practice and why? I guess
good because I was moving fast into open space (Student, in-task interview, lesson 4).
The consistent alignment of teacher intent and actions throughout the two TGA units
may explain the possible transfer during lesson 11 where the performance of passing decision
making was 82 percent (figure 1), quality of pass was 76 percent (figure 2), and cutting action
was 72 percent (figure 3). This was the only time during ultimate Frisbee where the participants’
had a similar success rate in all three variables as they did at the end of the team handball unit.
Teacher Intervention during learning tasks
The teacher’s ability to consistently detect and diagnose errors to realign the participants’
performance during the team handball unit emerged as a significant positive facilitator of aligned
content development. The teacher often utilized feedback and re-demonstration of the task to
realign breaches in the didactic contract. The teacher would utilize the pedagogy of
freeze/replay to correct the misalignments between intent and performance during practice and
game tasks. These efforts to limit breaches in the didactic contract were more frequent during
the team handball unit.
An example of the teacher’s consistent intervention during learning tasks occurred during
the first possession game in lesson 3. While the participants were taking part in the game the
first intervention by the teacher was to emphasize the utilization of the open space by the off-the-
ball support players. While providing feedback during the intervention the teacher’s comments
were:
Freeze! How should we be moving into space? And are we in good open space?
Remember we need to find good open space and move to it quickly so we can receive a
good pass from our teammate with a ball. Remember spread out and do not bunch, use
space (Teacher, video observation, lesson 3).
The consistent feedback and the interventions on off-the-ball movement during team
handball facilitated positive game performance, not only during lesson 3, where the participants
achieved 70 percent (figure 3) success rate during game play, but continued to increase student
cutting-action performance (figure 3) throughout the team handball TGA unit.
Another example of how the teacher’s quick diagnosis and re-alignment occurred during
the pass and move forward task at the beginning of lesson 5. The teacher intervened after the first
trial in the task (table 1). This quick intervention was an artifact of what was seen at the end of
lesson 4 where the students had difficulty performing a lead pass to be successful in the pass and
move forward practice. Teacher reflected on this during the lesson 4 post-lesson interview:
Q: Do you think the students improved upon the skills you had intended for them today?
TA: Yeah, based on their first practice I think they certainly did. Initially I noticed that
the biggest problem that was leading to failure in the passing and moving forward was
the failure to maintain possession. The problem was the student was not completing very
good passes they were either too far behind the receiver so the receiver had to stop their
rhythm and reach back or they were too deep but, I did see some improvement at the end
of that task (Teacher, post-lesson interview, lesson 4).
When the teacher intervened after the first trial of the pass and move forward practice
there was a re-demonstration of the task and a good lead pass and the explanation followed why
a good lead pass was needed:
Freeze! I see that we are having trouble with giving our partner a good lead pass.
Remember in order to successfully pass and move forward into space with our partner
our passes have to be ahead them because we are moving. (While demonstrating) As you
can see I lead Cassandra and then she has to lead me (Pass thrown behind teacher), oh see
what happens when we do not do a lead pass? We cannot complete a good pass to
someone who is moving forward into open space if our partner does give us a good lead
so, I want to see good lead passes (Teacher, video observation, lesson 5).
Table 1 illustrates the success in the pass and move forward task during lesson 5. The
table illustrates how the participants began the pass and move forward task by not performing
lead passes which created a critical breach in the didactic contract. The teacher intervened after
trial 2 to re-demonstrate a lead pass and realign the didactic contract. After, the intervention and
realignment the teacher maintained the accountability of the realignment of the didactic contract
by providing feedback on the lead pass. Table 1 illustrates the success of the participants after
the intervention by the teacher to realign the didactic contract during the pass and move forward
practice:
Table 1. Student performance during the pass and move forward practice task from lesson 5.
Trial # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Participants L & J C &N L & N J & C J & K L & N N & C J & L J & C % success
Success/Failure F F S S S S S S S 78%
Content Knowledge
Pass and move forward into space(1) + + (TF) + + + + + + + 100%
Hold out hands to receive (3) + + + + + + + + + 100%
Pass ahead of the receiver (4) - (TF) - + + + (TF) + + (TF) + + (TF) 78%
Move quickly after pass (2) + + + + + + + + + 100%
Note:
+/- Successful/Failure to demonstrate content element
Critical failure element
(TF) Teacher feedback statement
Aligned teacher feedback and task intervention continued into the ultimate frisbee TGA
unit. Although, the frequency and consistency of these interventions decreased they were highly
aligned with the didactic intent of the task and a continued to emphasize quick, short passes and
moving into open space to receive a pass. This reduction in frequency of intervention with the
target group did elicit more problematic CDIs. During lesson 8, the first lesson of ultimate
frisbee, the participants were taking part in the partner passing task but student modification of
the task quickly arose after the teachers demonstration and instruction. The didactic intent of
partner passing task was stated by the teacher:
On the passing of course, just the basic fundamental skill cues of passing. The grip
position, the middle finger and the thumb pinching the disc, the pointer finger on the rim
of the disc, just a flat level release, snapping to the target, and also quick flat passes, as
opposed to long lob passes (Teacher, pre-lesson interview, lesson 8)
During the partner passing demonstration the teacher gave a complete demonstration on
how to hold the disc and what was an appropriate throw for frisbee:
We are going to do partner passing to help us with passing. When we hold the frisbee,
while doing the backhand pass, we want to have our thumb and middle finger holding the
frisbee, and we want our pointer finger on the rim of the disc. Now, when we hold and
throw our frisbee we want it to be nice and flat disc like a dinner plate so, we don’t spill
our dinner (throws the frisbee to the student). Now, see how my frisbee was nice and flat
so I didn’t spill my dinner and I snapped my wrist to my target (Teacher, video
observation, lesson 8)?
While the teacher was demonstrating the task to the class the participants were not paying
attention. The participants were either talking to one another or laying down therefore, they
could not see the demonstration from the teacher. This lack of attention seemed to elicit a
misalignment between the teacher’s intent and what actually occurred which led to a CDI during
partner passing:
We didn’t have much time. I think that I did good but I think we could have done better
if there wasn’t as long of demos. We had difficulties staying on task and I was throw
“ducks” and running around too fast. I was successful at catching and throwing with a
spin. Spin is when you you’re not really sure if it’s top or back but it keeps it in the circle
and it doesn’t tilt (Leonard, in-task interview, lesson 8).
During the partner passing task there were no feedback statements directed to the target
participants and the only intervention that occurred was directed to the class as a whole.
Consistent feedback and interventions maintained the alignment of the didactic contract during
the task but, when it was absent the participants often modified the task. The teacher’s only
intervention provided a re-demonstration on passing and catching skill cues:
I’m seeing a lot of us having difficulty with catching the fribsee and this is my fault I
might not have covered it well enough but, the skill cues for catching is we want to use
fly trap hands (demonstration how to catch a frisbee using “fly trap hands”). Skill cues
for throwing are point with our shoulder or our side and stepping to the target (Teacher,
video observation, lesson 8).
Although, the teacher provided an intervention that was aligned with what was intended
for the task, the teacher did not follow that intervention and re-demonstration with feedback
directed to the participants to provided accountability to make sure they were performing the task
as intended. As a result of this lack of accountability in the partner passing task during lesson 8
the resultant outcome was an immediate decrease in appropriate passing decision making (figure
1), quality of pass (figure 2), and cutting action (figure 3) during lesson 8.
Problematic breaches in the didactic contract occurred more frequently in the ultimate
frisbee TGA unit than during the team handball unit. The consistency to intervene to maintain
the didactic contract was less during ultimate frisbee which continued to lead to more CDIs in
the ultimate frisbee unit. For instance during the pass and move task in lesson 9 the teacher did
not intervene in the task to fix the breach of the contract until possession 8, far after the CDI had
occurred. The teacher stated the didactic intent of the pass and move practice during the pre-
lesson interview:
Just get the students to utilize the plant, razor, run in order to move quickly into open
space (Teacher, pre-lesson interview, lesson 9).
During the demonstration 2 of the 4 participants were not paying attention to the
demonstration of the task (video observation) but no consequences occurred. The teacher
provided a complete demonstration of the task with another group of students:
“We are all working together with our team so this is cooperative. This is called the pass
and move, in other words the focus of it is for us to pass the frisbee to our teammates and
move quickly as you can to open space to receive a pass. So, we are going to do the best
we can in our quadrant we are trying to get 15 passes with our teammates. I am just going
to pass and move to open space so I can receive a pass. You got to be looking for your
teammates and if you see they are making eye contact with you and you see their hands
are ready you want to lead them with the Frisbee and get it right in their hands.” Then
the teacher proceeds to demonstrate the task with the group of students while. (Teacher,
video observation, lesson 9).
Although half of the participants were not paying attention, they seemed to understand
the didactic intent of the pass and move task:
The goal is to pass with your crocodile ways and to move into open space. We should be
working together in this practice….to maintain possession. We should be moving into
open space using the plant, razor, run (Student, in-task interview, lesson 9).
Once the participants were sent out to perform the task, A CDI ensued. Table 2 shows the
participants’ performances during this CDI.
Table 2. Pass and Move Practice Task Performance Lesson 9.
Trial #1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
112 13
Total
Participants A L A C J L A L J C A L J
%
success
Success/Failure F F F F F F F F S S S S F 31%
Content Knowledge
Move into open space after pass
(1) - C - C - C - C
- (TF)
C - C
- (TF)
C
-
(TF)
+
(TF)
+
(TF) + + - 31%
Hold out hands to receive (4) + + - + + + + + + + + + + 92%
Pass ahead of the receiver (3) - - - - - - + (TF) -(TF) + + + + + 46%
Completed Pass (2) - - - + + + + + + + + + - 69%
Note:
+/- Successful/Failure to demonstrate content element
Critical failure element
(TF) Teacher feedback statement
There was no movement after making a pass amongst the participants during the first 8
trials of the task. This was a critical component of the pass and move practice and a component
that was identified by the teacher during the pre-lesson interview and demonstration to be a
critical element that was intended to be performed by the students. No teacher feedback
occurred until after trial 4 and no re-demonstration until after trial 8. The poor timing of
feedback and of the intervention led to a CDI during the pass and move practice task. This was a
common occurrence throughout the ultimate frisbee unit. The teacher’s intent for the task was to
have the students utilize the plant, razor, run to move into space, therefore, the teacher’s
feedback focus on that tactical component of the task rather than the skill execution of the pass
or holding the hands out. After the intervention took place the participants performed the task as
was intended by the teacher. Despite the CDI during the pass and move practice the participants
cutting action during game performance improved during lesson 9 (figure 3). The participants’
cutting action performance was 73 percent during lesson 9 which was a similar performance they
reached towards the end of the team handball unit (figure 3). Tactical transfer could also be the
explanation for this performance because although the participants were not successful in the
practice task and were off-task during instruction they performed well with their cutting actions
during game play.
Contextual environment of Ultimate Frisbee
From a tactically perspective team handball and ultimate frisbee are very similar. The
tasks across the two units were designed to be identical with the goal of facilitating tactical
transfer. Despite the tactical similarities across the games it became obvious that ultimate frisbee
provided different constraints to team handball in maintaining possession. Within team handball
the students had the option to perform a chest or overarm pass, which allowed the students to
make a high lob pass to complete a pass to a teammate that was not in an overt passing lane.
There are two types of passes in ultimate frisbee which are the forehand and backhand pass but
both passes have a similar flat level flight patterned when performed correctly. The frisbee’s flat
flight trajectory made completing a pass much more difficult than in team handball because the
frisbee is much easier to defend because of its flat level flight. The participants had a much more
difficult time completing longer passes to teammates who were in good space forward because
they do not have an option of an overhead pass. Therefore, when attempting the longer forward
passes to open teammates the frisbee passes were either blocked by a defender or the participants
attempted to release the disc higher which led to a poor quality of pass (figure 2).
This passing action also impacted the participants’ cutting actions because on-the-ball
decision making and execution affects the off-the-ball support. As figure 1 and figure 2
demonstrated when passing decision making and quality of pass performance decreased this led
to inconsistent cutting action performance (figure 3). The participants usually performed
appropriate cutting actions during the games (lesson 9 and 11, figure 3) but, because of the
decision-making and quality of pass was poor and inconsistent it ultimately affected cutting
performance. An example of this problem occurred during the 2v1 practice of lesson 10 and table
3 will demonstrate the participants’ inability to perform a “Pass ahead of the receiver” or a lead
pass. The defender in this practice was stationary because it was a modification by the teacher to
make the students more successful in the task:
Table 3. Student Performance during 2v1 Practice Task Lesson 10.
Trial # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total
Participants J &C A & L A & L L & J C & A C & A J & L A & C L& J C & A J & L
%
success
Success/Failure S S S F F F F F S F S 64%
Content Knowledge
Plant, Razor, Run Cut (1) + + + -
- (TF)
C - C + (TF) + (TF) + - + 64%
Hold out hands to receive
(3) + + + + + + + + + - + 91%
Pass ahead of the receiver
(2) - - - - - - + (TF) -(TF) + - C + 18%
Completed Pass (4) + + + + + - - - + - + 64%
Note:
+/- Successful/Failure to demonstrate content element
Critical failure element
(TF) Teacher feedback statement
Table 3 illustrates that the participants had difficulties throughout the task with passing a
head of the receiver which did have an impact on participants’ cutting action (Plant, Razor, and
Run Cut). The teacher did provide feedback during trial 7 and 8 on passing ahead of the receiver
but, the participants did not perform lead passes which reflects their inability and inconsistency
to perform it. As table 4 shows, the participants’ inability to perform a lead pass in the 2v1
practice is an example of how the lack of ability to complete lead passes against a stationary
defender would be more difficult to perform in the game and as a result affect the cutting actions.
The ability to perform a lead pass is important in ultimate frisbee because the participants needed
to make longer cuts in order to get open from defenders because of the frisbee’s trajectory is
flatter and thus the window of opportunity to complete a pass are shorter in Frisbee than team
handball. This factor necessitated the passer to lead the receiver more in Frisbee to successfully
complete a pass. The participants’ difficulty in quickly executing a catchable pass and the
difficulty of exploiting the shorter passing lanes inhibited transfer of performance. This lack of
passing performance led to inconsistent cutting actions during Frisbee task and game
performance. Once the support players realized the passer was unable to complete a quality pass
they moved closer to the passer which brought more defenders, and as a result made it even more
difficult to complete a pass and advance the frisbee because all the players clustered near the
frisbee carrier.
Chapter 5
Discussion, Conclusions, & Recommendations
The evolution and transfer of invasion game skills and tactics of five elementary students
participating in two Tactical Games Approach (TGA) units is discussed in this chapter. The data
presented in the previous chapter provided a synopsis of performance changes in the tactical
dependent variables of offensive passing decision-making, quality of pass and cutting patterns.
Re-occurring teaching-learning themes were also described within the evolution of the didactic
contract between teacher and participants during the TGA units.
The first research question addressed how student invasion game tactical knowledge and
performance evolved within the TGA team handball unit? Participants in this study
demonstrated a gradual improvement in on-the-ball and off-the-ball offensive decision-making
and movement as the team handball progressed. Specifically, the quality of off-the-ball
movement increased as students became more proficient at executing faster straight line cuts to
open space. The participants’ also executed more efficient short, quick and lead passes to
teammates in open space. These passing decisions were generally made within a 4 second DMU.
These findings provide support for previous research by MacPhail, Kirk, and Griffin (2008) who
found that as a TGA unit progressed 5th grade students were gradually able to make more
effective passes because of the improvement in off-the-ball movement. MacPhail et al (2008)
found that students were performing better movements and sharper cuts into open space allowing
for more open passing lanes. Nevett, Rovegno, Babiarz, and McCaughtry (2001) also conducted
a similar study that addressed how children’s invasion game tactical passing, catching and off-
the-ball cutting actions changed after a 12-lesson unit of TGA instruction. Using the same coding
instruments as this study, those authors found that students’ overall scores for appropriate
offensive decisions went up from 52.9 percent in the pretest to 66.6 percent in the posttest.
Nevett et al (2001) also found an increase in appropriate cutting patterns, but they also exhibited
greater movement into defensive traffic. “Good straight cuts” performed by the students
increased from 27.1 to 41.7 percent with no difference between the low and high skilled students.
There was also an increase in “poor movement to traffic” from 7.3 to 14.8 percent and this
finding was attributed to more students moving and attempting cutting patterns but not
necessarily in the correct direction. Although this study did not use a pre-test, post-test group
design, patterns of appropriate tactical decision making within the TGA team handball unit
reflected a similar pattern of success. The participants performed more appropriate short and lead
passes to advance the ball quickly towards the goal. By the end of the unit participants were
performing quicker straight line cuts forward into open space and there was much less holding of
the ball for multiple DMUs such that the frequency of poor deep passes or forced passes to a
guarded teammate was reduced. The quality of passes made also improved with participants
executing more catchable passes.
Nevett, et al (2001) stated that there was a need to study the interrelationship between
performers when actually examining children’s decision-making and motor skills during game
performance. Game skills and decisions are not isolated events, and the actions or decisions of
another player often influences the success and/or decisions of a teammate. This study examined
passing decision making, quality of pass, and cutting action as the three interrelational skills that
influence invasion game offensive tactics and skills. The results of tactical learning across the
team handball unit supports the assertion that as the unit progressed fewer immature passes and
cuts occurred and more mature ones, that is, more lead passes, more short passes, more
appropriate holding, less inappropriate holding, more cuts into open spaces, more running
forward, less jumping up and down and sliding sideways to cut, and more acceleration into space
(Nevett et al, 2001).
The first research question also addressed what offensive invasion game tactical skills
transferred from the team handball to ultimate frisbee performance. Results showed that by the
end of the ultimate frisbee unit straight line cutting actions and short quick passing decisions
reached similar performance levels as the team handball unit. A potential explanation for this
transfer of the off-the-ball cutting patterns may reside within identical elements theory. This
theory stipulates that transfer depends on having shared elements in acquisition and transfer with
the larger the number of such shared elements, the greater the likelihood that transfer will occur
(Rosenbaum, Carlson, & Gilmore, 2001). The task design and sequencing across the two TGA
units within this study looked to maximize transfer because of the shared tasks sequence across
the two units. The sequencing of skills so that learners can benefit from the transfer of previous
learned skills is central to the teaching and learning of motor skills, whether between
fundamental motor skills (e.g. running, jumping, throwing, catching) and sport specific skills
(Rink, 1998; Magill, 2004). O’Keeffe and colleagues (2007) revealed that the more general
movements involving the foot, trunk and backswing components of the fundamental throw are
the similar aspects which transfer to a badminton overhead clear and javelin throw while the
action of the forearm and humerus are more specific and less likely to transfer (O’Keeffe,
Harrison, and Smyth, 2007). This conceptual framework may explain some of the differential
patterns of performance transfer across units. The cutting actions performed by the participants
in both units had the identical elements of “plant, razor, and run”. The participants’ declarative
knowledge of when and how to perform cuts were identical throughout the two units. This would
support Thorndike’s identical elements theory (1903) of why the participants to demonstrated
similar levels of success for the cutting actions in the team handball and frisbee units. These
similarities of declarative and procedural knowledge for cutting actions seem to have facilitated
positive transfer across game forms. The decrease in performance of cutting actions during the
ultimate frisbee unit was mainly attributed to the participants adjusting to their teammate’s lack
of ability to execute a quality pass not by the lack of tactical decision-making of how or where to
cut, which did transfer. The lack of positive transfer of quality of pass from team handball to
ultimate frisbee may also be explained by identical elements theory. The passing techniques and
options developed during team handball had very different technical and process requirements to
that of projecting a Frisbee. The fundamental throwing motion for ultimate frisbee involves
holding the rim of the disc with the index finger, pinching the thumb and middle finger on the
frisbee, then pointing the shoulders to the intended target, stepping with the ipsolateral foot, and
finally snapping the wrist when the frisbee is released. This is very different from the chest pass
in team handball that involves holding the ball with both hands, and pushing the ball quickly
away from the center of the body. The lack of common identity of the object trajectories across
units may also have elicited different rates of success in sending catchable passes. The consistent
flat trajectory of the Frisbee constrained the passer to look for an open passing lane whether the
receiver was far away or close the passer. Within team handball this environmental constraint did
not exist as the passer had the option of an overarm pass during team handball if they needed to
perform a longer pass to a teammate who was open in forward space but was not in a clear
passing lane. This trajectory constraint manifest in a reduced pattern of success during ultimate
frisbee as participants attempted high passes or forced longer passes to guarded teammates which
predominately resulted in a poor quality of pass to their teammate.
The only prior study that has attempted to evaluate tactical transfer across units of TGA
was conducted by Mitchell and Oslin (1999). Their study showed that there was significant
improvement in the students’ decision-making from one net game unit to another (badminton to
pickleball) within TGA. Though valuable, the GPAI assessment tool used in their study provided
limited information to separate tactical decision-making from skill execution within net games.
The results of this study support Mitchell and Oslin’s (1999) proposition that TGA can facilitate
transfer of on-the-ball decision-making and off-the-ball movements, however, the extent of this
on-the-ball skill and tactical transfer was constrained by similarity of skill elements and object
trajectories.
The final research question addressed what characteristics of teacher and student
behavior within the didactic milieu of the TGA shaped the tactical content knowledge and
performance actually learned and transferred by students. Within didactics research, content is
viewed as context-specific and contingency staged; meaning the knowledge learned by the
students is a function of the explicit dynamics of the teaching episode that includes the nature of
the task, the student’s response to the task, and the teacher behavior in the task (Amade-Escot,
2000a). Didactics studies confirm that the knowledge to be taught and the knowledge actually
taught undergo complex transformation processes at various stages of selection and teaching,
which fundamentally distinguishes this knowledge from its origins in academic knowledge
(Amade-Escot, 2000a). Amade-Escot (1999, 2000a, 2000b) found that there is often a
misalignment between the intended content to be taught and what is actually learned by the
students, due to the indirect and /or implicit participant behavior within tasks. Although these
modifications may seem appropriate as students test their ability in achieving the goal(s) of the
task, some of these modifications become more critical to content knowledge development as
they result in differences between intended and actually learned content.
Throughout the TGA units the teacher’s alignment between the content intended to be
taught and what was actually instructed and demonstrated was consistently aligned to the unit
plans. The instructions and demonstration episodes were aligned with the didactic intent of the
task and were of high quality throughout the TGA units. The demonstrations of the task were
thorough and emphasized what was intended to be performed by the participants within the tasks
which aligned with the didactic intent. The teacher’s instructions predominantly focused on
emphasizing the tactical components of the units such as passing decision-making and offensive
support rather than the skill execution components of the pass and the catch. Although the TGA
model is not about emphasizing tactics over skills the teacher’s didactic intent was to emphasize
the offensive tactical decision-making during the practice and game tasks more than skill
technique. Holt, Strean and Bengochea (2002) have argued that the “versus” approach to
comparing tactical and skill-based approaches is a false dichotomy. They stipulate that it is
founded upon the flawed assumption that TGfU is mainly about teaching tactics and the
traditional approach is mainly about teaching technique, which is not true. “It is not about tactics
versus technique and which one is better but understanding that both tactics and techniques are
important in developing good games players” (Holt, Strean and Bengochea, 2002, p.262). The
consistent alignment between the teacher intent and what was actually instructed facilitated
aligned student content knowledge of task outcomes throughout both TGA units.
During the team handball unit, in-task teacher interventions occurred frequently and were
consistently focused on the tactical decision-making and the product of the skill execution (i.e.
catchable pass) rather than necessarily the skill cues required to perform the skill content of
tactical decision-making. These interventions occurred when the participants were struggling to
perform a skill or tactic during a practice or game task and often included “freeze/replay”
pedagogy of freeze in action and re-demonstration of the expected performance outcomes of the
task. Previous research within the didactics program has revealed that the content often delivered
by experienced physical education teachers is often in the form of instructions for execution
during students’ motor performance. More often than not, these instructions are general forms
taken from technical descriptions (sometimes obsolete) that are poorly suited to the students’
level of motor development (Amade-Escot, 2000a). Within this modality of teaching in-task
teacher interventions are mainly aimed at reducing the difference between the student’s
performance and the standardized model taken as a reference (Amade-Escot, 1993; Marsenach,
et al., 1991; Marsenach et al., 1993; Marsenach & Merand, 1987). The focus of the TGA is to
develop developmentally appropriate game play where the focus of content transposition is on
tactical decision-making and the “when and where” of skill execution rather than the necessarily
the “how” of skill execution. During feedback or re-demonstrations the teacher refrained from
providing feedback that made the game task either too simplistic or altering the intended
outcomes for the task. This frequent in-task teacher intervention within the team handball unit
served to reduce the prevalence of critical breaches in the didactic contract and thus facilitated
improved offensive tactical and skill performance during game play.
The increase in group size facilitated a decrease in frequency of in-task teacher
intervention and feedback with the target group for the ultimate Frisbee unit. This reduced in-
task intervention reduced the teacher accountability within tasks (Doyle, 1986). Didactics
research has shown that when teachers reduce requirements of the tasks it can cause a result in
three potential student modifications: (1) students changing the initial conditions of the task
causing critical moments in the teaching process, (2) teacher modification of the task before the
students have time to adapt, or (3) the students move onto a new task without developing any
consistency in previous tasks (Amade-Escot, 2000a). The teacher’s feedback had maintained the
didactic intent of the tasks during the team handball unit but, during the ultimate frisbee unit the
teacher feedback became less frequent and the students modifications of the tasks became more
critical and persistent. The students often knew the intent of the task but modified the task
conditions, for example, adding an extra defender during, adding an extra receiver, or frisbee
during practice tasks. This task modification contributed to extended CDIs and a reduced transfer
of skills and knowledge during the ultimate frisbee unit. These student modifications made by
the participants support a situated learning perspective that operate within TGA, that the
learner’s active engagement with subject matter is embedded within and is constituted by layers
of physical, sociocultural, and institutional contexts (Griffin & Patton, 2005). With less teacher
accountability the participants utilized their knowledge of previous iterations of the practice tasks
in team handball to socially construct task modifications they believed were appropriate and
meaningful for them. These modifications often were misaligned with the teacher’s intent and
thus facilitated misaligned transformation and elaboration of the content. These adaptations also
provide evidence that individuals bring prior knowledge to learning episodes that may contain a
range of alternative conceptions of content (MacPhail et al 2008). Without frequent, focused task
intervention this prior knowledge and the socio-cultural aspects of the group dynamic often
served to subjugate the teacher’s intent for the task and constrain the program of action (Hastie &
Siedentop, 2006).
Conclusions
This study serves to develop and further our understanding of the teaching and learning
process and tactical transfer within the Tactical Games Approach. Participants improved in
passing decision making, quality of pass, and cutting action game performance during the team
handball TGA unit. Appropriate tactical learning primarily occurred as a function of aligned
teacher intent and elaboration and the frequency of aligned interventions and feedback that
occurred within both practice and game tasks. Off-the-ball straight line cutting actions primarily
transferred across units because of the similarity of fundamental skills required to perform an
appropriate cut was the same between the TGA units. Passing decision making and quality of
pass exhibited some transfer towards the end of the ultimate frisbee unit but was limited by the
decrease in teacher interventions and feedback and critical student modifications of the task. The
contextual variance in the dimensions of the skill themes and object trajectory in ultimate frisbee
also limited transfer in all three offensive game performance variables analyzed.
This study supports previous research that children’s decisions-making abilities can be
improved over the course of a TGA unit of instruction when the instruction focused on simple
game strategies (Nevett et al, 2001). Additionally the findings of this study support previous
research that has examined off-the-ball movements during TGA which found that as the unit
progressed students exhibited fewer immature cuts and more mature one, and performed shorter
and lead passes (Rovegno et al, 2001). The findings of this study also support Rovegno et al.
(2001) who found that the children seemed to acquire cognitive knowledge of a catchable pass
easily and they could describe appropriate passing and cutting before they could perform these
with reasonable consistency. The relationality of on-the ball and off-the-ball movements during
invasion games was also supported as passing decision-making improvement coincided with
more mature cutting patterns (MacPhail et al, 2008).
Mitchell and Oslin (1999) recommended that future research should examine tactical
transfer in invasion games where tactical similarities are perhaps even greater than in the net
games category. Within invasion games, off-the-ball movements are a large component of
effective game play and do not require coordinated controlled projection of a ball or object. This
dimension of the game performance may be more closely aligned with changes in tactical
cognition. This study is significant as it is the first to empirically evaluate the concept of tactical
transfer of off-the-ball movement across TGA invasion game units. The results of this study
showed that although this process of transfer is constrained by the similarity of skill dimensions
the off-the-ball cutting patterns across invasion games is sufficiently similar to produce positive
transfer across games.
Although the TGA may be an effective approach for teaching offensive invasion game
tactics across different game forms the teacher action within the approach is critical to success.
Aligned demonstration, explanation and frequent in-task teacher intervention within both
practice and games tasks were critical for the positive development of student offensive game
performance. The reduced frequency of teacher intervention within the ultimate frisbee unit
contributed to participants’ more frequent modifications of the tasks and revision of critical
components of those tasks. This study revealed that these modifications affected what was
actually performed by the participants during the ultimate frisbee. These modifications were
important in understanding the student’s reflected efforts to accomplish the objectives of the
tasks which may appear to be exceptionally critical to content development and support the use
of the didactic lens to study the teaching-learning process of these tactical variables (Amade-
Escot, 2000b).
Recommendations
The findings of this study provide some empirical support for a games-based curriculum
that sequences games that have similar tactical and skill components to be taught in succession.
The game classification system developed by Almond (1986) provides a basis for teachers to
select a variety of games content, providing breadth of experience, it remains possible and would
be advantageous to organize the games curriculum to allow for depth for learning, particularly if
teachers are able to help learners transfer an understanding of one game to aid performance in
another (Mitchell & Oslin, 1999). Although certain games may reside in the same game
classification it is important to consider the commonality of skill elements that are required and
what equipment is utilized when selecting the sequence of these units. The effectiveness of the
teacher’s interventions and frequency of tactical feedback within the tasks was critical to the
content that was actually learned and performed. Didactic research in peer teaching has found
teacher interventions to be critical in realigning breaches in the didactic contract (Wallhead &
O’Sullivan, 2007). Frequency and timing of feedback are also critical during the TGA, which is
teacher-directed, to diagnose misalignments and realign students performance within tasks. With
larger groups this intervention may be maximized by the teacher attempting to diagnose common
misalignment or problems students are having with a particular skill or tactic within a task and
providing a whole class re-demonstration and explanation an entire class intervention.
This case study could be expanded upon and use a more experimental design to observe
transfer with control or comparison groups to see how many trials or episodes it could take for a
particular group to achieve a similar or surpass the performance of a previous unit. A similar
didactic analysis could be conducted to observe tactical defense and transfer across tactical game
units. Defensive players have more off-the-ball time than offensive players and defensive
players’ tactical decision-making would potentially be highly dependent on the offensive players
they are playing against.
Limitations
The didactic methodology described the situated evolution of content within the team
handball and ultimate frisbee learning tasks of the TGA and contributed to the understanding of
the features which distinguish the content to intended to be taught with the content actually
learned across units. Consideration must be taken when considering these findings of this study,
which was limited to the analysis of one experienced physical education teacher and five
elementary participants’ perceptions and content development related to specific team handball
and ultimate frisbee tasks developed by the researcher. These participants may not be a true
representation of all physical education teachers and students who participate within two units of
team handball and ultimate frisbee taught using TGA. During the team handball unit the teacher
only taught the target group which allowed the teacher to maintain the didactic contract more
effectively but, during the ultimate frisbee unit the teacher taught the entire class which is a more
realistic representation of maintaining the didactic contract during a TGA unit.
It is important to realize that there were only 13 lessons between the two units which
were a result of time left in the school year and other school functions that conflicted with the
physical education classroom. This may have restricted students’ opportunities to progress and
develop their skills and tactics needed in order to improve transfer from team handball into the
ultimate frisbee unit. These are circumstances that occur in schools therefore are deemed to be an
acceptable and provide some insight of how small of opportunities a teacher may have to offer
two units to provide students with opportunities for tactical transfer.
This study coded, but did not analyze catching performance and did not code or analyze
defensive performance of the participants or of the students playing against the study
participants. It is important to understand that off-the-ball movement and on-the-ball
performance are relational and the same can be argued for the level of defense play on and off
the ball are also relational to off-the-ball movement and on-the-ball performance. The level of
defense used in tasks and game did impact performance of the participants but, it is an acceptable
limitation of invasion games because defense is a large component of invasion games. This
purpose of this study was to analyze the learning and transfer of on and off the ball decision
making between the TGA units and not to analyze defensive performance in relation to offensive
performance.
References
Alexander, P. & Judy, J. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific and strategic knowledge in
academic performance, Review of Educational Research, 58, 375-404.
Almond, L. (1986). Reflecting on themes: A games classification. In R. Thorpe, D. Bunker, and
L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 71-72). Loughborough, England:
University of Technology, Department of Physical Education and Sports Science.
Anderson, J.R. (1976). Language, memory, and thought (Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum).
Amade-Escot, C. (1993). Procedure of didactic re-adjustment in PE: study of some forms of
management of didactic situations by novice teachers. In G. Bui-Xuan & J. Gleyse (Eds.).
Journal of Physical Education and Sport (pp. 61-73). Grenoble, France: AFRAPS.
Amade-Escot, C. (1999). Teacher’s role in didactic interactions. Paper presented at AIESEP
World Congress, Besancon, France.
Amade-Escot, C. (2000a). The contribution of two research programs on teaching content: PCK
and Didactics of physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 78-
101.
Amade-Escot, C. (2000b). How students manage the didactic contract? Contribution of the
didactic perspective to research in physical education classroom. Paper presented at
AERA Congress, New Orleans, LA.
Amade-Escot, C. (2005). Using the critical didactic incidents method to analyze content taught.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24, 127-148.
Beard, C.H. (1993). Transfer of computer skills from introductory computer course. Journal of
Research in Computing in Education, 25, 413-430.
Benson, N.J. (1970). Training and transfer-of-learning effects in disabled and normal readers:
Evidence of specific deficits. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 343-366.
Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of Didactical Situations in Mathematics. In N. Balacheff, M.
Cooper, R. Sutherland, V. Warlfield (Eds.). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A model for the teaching of games in secondary school
Bulletin of Physical, 18, 5-8.
Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1986). Is there a need to reflect on our games teaching? In R. Thorpe,
D. Bunker, & L. Almond (Eds.), Rethinking games teaching (pp. 25-34). Loughborough,
England: University of Technology, Department of Physical Education and Sports
Sciences.
Couzner, B.N. (1974). The transfer of learning between tennis and table tennis skills, The
Australian Journal of Physical Education, 66, 5-8.
Dodds, P., Griffin, L. & Placek, J. (2001) A selected review of literature on development of
learners’ domain-specific knowledge, Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(4),
301-313.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management, In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.) Handbook
of research on teaching (3rd Ed., pp. 392-432). London: Macmillan
French, K.E., & McPherson, S.L. (2004). The development of expertise. In M.R. Weise (Ed.),
Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective. Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology.
French, K., & Thomas, J. (1987). The relation of knowledge development to children’s
basketball performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 15-32.
French, K. E., Werner, P. H., Taylor, K., Hussey, K., & Jones, J. (1996). The effects of a 6-week
unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical skill instruction on badminton performance of
ninth grade students [Monograph]. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15, 439-
452.
Griffin, L. L., Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical
games approach. Human Kinetics. Champaign, IL.
Griffin, L.L., & Patton, K. (2005). Two Decades of Teaching Games for Understanding: Looking
at the Past, Present, and Future. In L.L. Griffin & J.I. Butler (Eds.), Teaching Games for
Understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice (p.1-17). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Harvey, L. & Anderson, J. (1996). Transfer declarative knowledge in complex information-
processing domain. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 69-96.
Hastie, P.A., & Siedentop, D. (2006) The classroom ecology paradigm. In D. Kirk, D.
MacDonald, & M. O’Sullivan (Eds.), The handbook of physical education (pp. 214-225).
London, UK: Sage Publications.Henry, F.M. (1958). Specificity vs. generality in
learning motor skill. Abstract, Proceeding,College Physical Education Association, 126-
128.
Henry, F.M. & Rogers, D.E. (1960) Increased response latency for complicated movements and
a ‘Memory Drum’ theory of neuromotor reaction, Research Quarterly, 31, 448-458.
Hilgard, E.R., & Bower G.H. (1975). Theories of Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
(4th Ed.).
Holt, N.L., Strean, W.B. & Bengoechea, E.G. (2002). Expanding the teaching games for
understanding model: New avenues for future research and practice. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 21, 162-176.
Kirk, D. (2005). Future Prospects for Teaching Games for Understanding. In. L.L. Griffin & J.I.
Butler (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding: Theory, Research, and Practice
(p.213-227). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Kirk, D., & MacDonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 17, 376-387.
Kirk, D., & MacPhail, A. (2002). Teaching games for understanding and situated learning:
Rethinking the Bunker-Thorpe model. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 21,
177-192.
Lave & Wegner (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation (New York,
Cambridge University Press).
Leziart, Y. (1997). Scholarly knowledge and didactic transposition in PE. Revue STAPS. 42, 59-
72
MacPhail, A., Kirk, D., & Griffin, L. L. (2008). Throwing and catching as relational skills
in game play: Situated learning in a modified game unit. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 27, 100-115.
Magill, R. A. (1993). Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications (4th Ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Brown & Benchmark.
Magill, R.A. (2004). Motor Learning: Concepts and Applications (7th Ed.). Boston, MA.
McGraw-Hill International.
Marsenach, J., Dhellemmes, R., Canvel, A., & Mirabel, L. (1993). PE teaching: The case study
of long jump. In J. Colomb (Ed.). Lessons in third and second: Ruptures and continuities.
(pp. 205-228). Paris: INRP.
Marsenach, J., Dhellemmes, R., Goirand, P., Lebas, A., Leziart, Y., Loquet, M., Roche, J., &
Roussel, F. (1991). PE: What type of teaching? Paris: INRP.
Marsenach, J. & Merand, R. (1987). Formative assessment in PE middle-school. Paris: INRP.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
McAloon, N.M. (1994). Connections (from the teacher’s desk). Journal of Reading, 37, 698-699.
Metzler, M. W. (2000). Instructional models for physical education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Mitchell, S., & Oslin, J. (1999). An investigation of tactical understanding in net games.
European Journal of Physical Education, 4, 162-172.
Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2003). Sport foundations for elementary physical
education: A tactical game approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Nevett, M., Rovegno, I., Babiarz, M., & McCaughtry, N. (2001). Chapter 6. Changes in basic
tactics and motor skills in an invasion type game after a 12-lesson unit of instruction
[Monograph]. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20, 352-369.
O'Keeffe, S., Harrison, A. & Smyth, P. (2007). Transfer or specificity? An applied investigation
into the relationship between fundamental overarm throwing and related sport skills.
Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 12(2), 89-102.
Rink, J.E. (1998). Teaching physical education for learning (3rd Ed.). WBC Mcgraw-Hill.
Rink, J.E. (2001). Investigating the assumptions of pedagogy. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 20, 112-128.
Rose, D.J. & Heath, E.M. (1990). The contribution of a fundamental motor skill to the
performance and learning of a complex sport skill, Journal of Human Movement Studies,
19, 75-84.
Rosenbaum, D. A., Carlson, R. A., & Gilmore, R. O. (2001). Acquisition of intellectual and
perceptual-motor skills. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 453-465.
Rovegno, I., Nevett, M., Brock, S., & Babiarz, M. (2001). Chapter 7. Teaching and learning
basic invasion game tactics in 4th grade: A descriptive study from situated and constraints
theoretical perspectives [Monograph]. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 15,
370-388.
Schmidt, R.A. & Lee, T.D. (1999). Motor control and learning (3rd Ed.) Champaign, IL. Human
Kinetics.
Schmidt, R.A. & Young, D.E. (1987). Transfer of movement control in motor skill learning. In J.
Hagman (Ed.) Transfer of learning (New York, Academic Press Inc.).
Schubauer-Leoni, M. L., & Grossen, M. (1993). Negotiating the meaning of questions in didactic
and experimental contracts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 4, 451-471.
Sharp, R.H. (1992) Acquiring skill in sport (Sport Dynamics).
Shuell, T. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Educational Research, 56, 411-
436.
Sternberg, R.J. (1984). A theory of knowledge acquisition in the development of verbal concepts.
Developmental Review, 4, 113-138.
Thorndike, E.L. (1903). Educational Psychology. New York: Lemcke& Buechner.
Thorndike, E.L. (1914). Educational psychology: briefer course (New York, Columbia
University Press).
Thorpe, R.D., & Bunker, D. (1989). A changing focus in games teaching. In L. Almond (Ed.),
The place of physical education in schools (pp. 42-71). London: Kogan Page.
Thorpe, R.D., Bunker, D., & Almond, L. (1984). A change in the focus of teaching games. In M.
Pieron & G. Graham (Eds.), Sport pedagogy: Olympic Scientific Congress proceedings
(Vol. 6, pp. 163-169). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Turner, A. P., & Martinek, T.J. (1999). An investigation into teaching games for understanding:
Effects on skill, knowledge, and game play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
70, 286-296.
Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W.F. (1987). Theories of knowledge restructuring in development.
Review of Educational Research, 57, 51–67.
Wallhead, T. L., & O’Sullivan, M. (2007). A didactic analysis of content development during the
peer teaching tasks of a Sport Education season. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,
12, 225-243.
Werner, P., Thorpe, R., Bunker, D. (1996). Evolution of a model. Journal of Teaching in
Physical Education, 6, 28-34.
Zebas, C.J. & Johnson, H.M. (1989) Transfer of learning from the overhand throw to the tennis
serve, Strategies, June.
APPENDIX A:
IRB LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE
APPENDIX B:
TEAM HANDBALL UNIT BLOCK PLAN
Team Handball Unit Block Plan
Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3Maintaining possession
Management: Court space areasOrganize into teams
Learning activities:5v5 Attaching Game I.A.3v2 possession gameTriangle passing and catching3v2 possession gamePass and move3v3 (3v2) possession game
Maintaining possession
Learning Activities:3v3 (3v2) possession gamePressure passing3v3 (3v2) possession gamePass and move3v3 (3v2) possession game
Maintaining possession
Learning Activities:3v3 (3v2) possession game2v1 Practice3v3 (3v2) attacking game
Lesson 4 Lesson 5 Lesson 6Maintaining forward possession
Learning Activities:3v3 Attacking gamePass and Move forward3v3 Attacking game
Starts and restarts
Learning Activities:5v5 Attacking Game Restart passing5v5 Attacking Game
Attacking the goal
Learning Activities:5v5 Attacking Game Pass and shoot5v5 Attacking game
Lesson 7 Lesson 8
Defending Space
Learning Activities:5v5 Attacking Game 2v2 End zone5v5 Attacking game
Tournament
Learning Activities5v5 Attacking Game 5v5 Attacking game(Team A v B, C v D)(Team A v D, B v C)
APPENDIX C:
ULTIMATE FRISBEE UNIT BLOCK PLAN
Ultimate Frisbee Unit Block Plan
Lesson 1 Lesson 2 Lesson 3IntroductionTactics: Maintaining possession: make and catch good passes with teammates
Management: General introduction of Tactical approachGeneral introduction of Ultimate Frisbee
Learning Activities:5v5 Attacking Game3v3 (3v2) Possession game Partner backhand passingTriangle backhand passingForehand pass3v3 (3v2) Possession game
Tactics: Maintaining possession: move to open space and make safe passes
Learning Activities:Partner forehand passing3v3 (3v2) Possession game Pass and move3v3 (3v2) Possession game 2v1 single pass3v3 (3v2) Possession game
Tactics: Maintaining Forward possession
Learning Activities:3v3 (3v2) Possession game 2v1 Keep Ball3v3 Attacking gamePass and Move forward(2v1 attack game)3v3 Attacking game
Lesson 4 Lesson 5 Lesson 6Tactics: Attacking the end zone
Learning Activities:2v1 Attack game5v5 Attacking Game Clearing out5v5 Attacking Game (Team A v B, C v D)
Defending Space
Learning Activities:Stack moves5v5 Attacking Game 2v2 End zone5v5 Attacking game(Team A v D, B v C)
Tournament
Learning Activities5v5 Attacking Game (Team A v D, B v C)(Team A v C, B v D)
APPENDIX D:
TGA LESSON SEQUENCE
TGA LESSON SEQUENCE
GAME: 3v3 (3v2) possession game
QUESTIONS
PRACTICE: Pressure passing
GAME: 3v3 (3v2) possession game
QUESTIONS
PRACTICE: Pass and move
GAME: 3v3 (3v2) possession game
APPENDIX E:
PRE-LESSON TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
PRE-LESSON TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What skill of team handball do you want the students to improve upon today?
2. What practices do you have planned today?
3. What are the main objectives of each of those practices?
4. How do you think the students will do in the practices?
5. What are the coaching points that the student coaches in the practice?
6. Do you foresee any problems with any individuals in attempting to do these practices?
7. How do you think you may change the practice to adapt to these difficulties?
APPENDIX F:
IN-TASK STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
IN-TASK STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. What is the goal of this practice?
2. What should you be doing?
3. How do you think you are doing in this practice?
a. Why?
4. Have you encountered any difficulties to this practice so far?
5. What did you do to be successful in the practice?
APPENDIX G:
POST-LESSON TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
POST-LESSON TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Do you think the students improved upon the skills you had intended for them today?
What would be your comments regarding your students’ performance in the practices?
Were you happy with their performance? Why?
Did your students do what you wanted them to do in the practices?
What were the main difficulties the students had in the practices?
o Can you provide me with some examples of some difficulties your students had.
You said to …. and they did ….. can you tell me why you think they reacted like that?
If you were to do this practice again, how would you make it different, what would you
change?
o Why?
APPENDIX H:
KEY BEHAVIORS FOR PASSING DECISIONS
KEY BEHAVIORS FOR PASSING DECISIONS
APPENDIX I:
KEY BEHAVIORS FOR OFF-THE-BALL ACTIONS
KEY BEHAVIORS FOR OFF-THE-BALL ACTIONS
APPENDIX J:
PASSING DECISION CODING INSTRUMENT
PASSING DECISION CODING INSTRUMENT
APPENDIX K:
OFF-THE-BALL ACTIONS CODING INSTRUMENT
OFF-THE-BALL ACTIONS CODING INSTRUMENT