The three dimensions of sport pedagogy are knowledge in context, learners and learning and teachers and teaching. These should be considered by the teacher or coach when making decisions on which teaching style or learning theory they should follow to ensure effective teaching and learning. It’s important though to realise that these three dimensions of sport pedagogy are closely linked and overlap.
Knowledge in context
“The selection of knowledge to be taught, coached or learnt is always a context bound decision” (Armour, 2011, p. 13). For teachers to be able to make decisions on how to approach teaching a certain group in a certain situation they need to consider the knowledge in context. Both management aspects like time and resources should be considered as well as the pupils characteristics that are learning. Furthermore the teachers have to follow the current national curriculum. This causes the teachers to try to find a balance between power and agency, on deciding what to teach through their own personal opinion but trying to be within the government guidelines. Consequently this has caused teachers to have less opportunity to decide for themselves what to teach (Evans 1999). However it can be difficult for teachers to constantly follow the national curriculum when it’s constantly changing due to social and political factors, therefore this may also affect how the teacher does effective practice (Armour 2011). It’s also essential as a teacher to follow what their intended learning outcomes are that they set for the pupils. They have to decide what they want their class to be able to achieve by the end. For example if they want to improve pupil’s netball passing, then select appropriate passing drills to use. Therefore teachers need to consider the context of the situation before making a decision on what to teach and how to teach it, so effective practice can occur.
Learners and Learning
It’s essential that teachers realise that learners are diverse and that they all have preferences on how they learn. They also need to realise that they come from a range of backgrounds such as different ages, experiences and cultures (Armour 2011). Therefore considering this the teachers can make a decision on what the best learning theory to use.
One learning theory that a teacher may use is behaviourism. This is the acquisition of new behaviour, which is modified through stimulus- response and selective reinforcement (Armour 2011). Pedagogy strategies that are linked to behaviourism are instructional ones (Armour 2011). This means that teaching styles such as Instructional styles can be considered to do a more behaviourist approach as it involves a learner producing a response due to the teacher’s instruction (stimulus). However, this can be considered simplistic as more must happen than an input producing an output, other processes in the brain must occur such as analysing and processing which lead to the outcome. Therefore cognitivism may be a more beneficial learning theory. This involves the transmitting information to the learners, who will receive the information and process it (Tishman et al 1993). Teachers may use cognitive methods to help the learner to develop further understanding through surface learning such as short term memorising and long term learning where they think more deeply and understand the concept so it’s less likely to be forgotten, the learners then link the knowledge. (Armour 2011). In the context of physical education this may lead to memory techniques being used, for example to learn complex rules of sport such as rugby rules. The teacher may keep asking and repeating the rules to the pupils so they start to memorise them.
The most effective learning theory in my opinion is constructivism. Boghossain (2006) explained that constructivism involves learners being active participants in the learning process, where they use experiences from their activities to find meaning which leads to them building their knowledge. Constructivism can be split into social and cognitive aspects. Cognitive constructivism was mainly developed through the work of Piaget and it’s based on how children develop through stages of learning and he argued that children develop through accommodation and assimilation of the information presented to them (Chambers 2011). Whereas social constructivism is based on how children learn through the use of experiences, rather than help from teachers or peers. This is explained through the zone of proximal development which suggests that teachers need to challenge pupils and learners to enhance their learning (Chambers 2011). Therefore discovery learning is a teaching style that can be used linked to constructivism. This involves the pupils the pupils discovering things on their own which can be remembered more easily in the future than when a teacher tells them what to do (Yilmaz 2011). I remember an example of this from when I was learning netball which involved me discovering on my own the ways in which is easier to shoot. Through practice and experience I learnt the more I flick my wrists the better my shot. On the other hand, a problem with leaving pupils to discover things on their own may not be beneficial to all, as it can depend on the pupil’s motivation. If they are not motivated to discover new things, they aren’t going to put the effort in when they are left alone to do so. Therefore again, it’s important that the teacher considers the learners characteristics before making a decision on learning theory’s and teaching styles to use.
Teachings and teaching
Teachers and teaching is a further dimension of sport pedagogy. This involves the importance and the ability of teachers to make a decision on what approach and teaching style they will use with their pupils and being flexible enough to use a variety of styles. This can again be linked to the context as it can be dependent on the teacher’s preference and experience. There are 11 different types of teaching style, which were developed by Muska Mosston in 1996. The spectrum of teaching styles range from more teacher centred approaches such as command and practice styles to more student centred approaches such as guided discovery and self-teaching. The spectrum can therefore be split into two parts, the reproductive styles and the productive styles. The reproductive styles involves the learner repeating behaviour that they see. Firstly there is the teacher command style, this involves the teacher telling pupils what to do and they respond. According to (Thomson, 2009) A benefit of the teacher using this type of teaching style is that the pupils have multiple chances to watch and hear the skill cues they are learning before practicing them due to watching demonstrations from the teacher or coach. An example of a teacher using the command style would be them showing a demonstration of a football penalty shot then the pupils copying. On the other hand Thomson (2009) argued that the pupils who may be more advanced in the skills they are learning, could easily get bored and unmotivated due to the class working in unison and possibly at a slower pace. Therefore it’s essential that when a teacher uses the command style they consider the effect it may have on those who are slightly more advanced, so again considering the context of the situation they are teaching in. In contrast to the command style Brunner (1961) described guided discovery is a teaching style which involves the pupils having a problem to solve on their own but the teachers provide hints and feedback For example using the football example again, the teacher may ask the group to think of different ways of dribbling with the football to get around a defender. In my opinion this will remove the problems that may occur with more advanced students getting bored, as it’s a chance to use scaffolding of their previous knowledge in football to provide well thought answers to the teacher, which can be motivating for them. However Mayer (2004) argued that a difficulty teachers and coaches may face with guided discovery is knowing how much guiding and support to provide in each circumstance. Therefore this requires further decision making to be done by the teachers, not only do they need to make a decision on what teaching style to use, they also need to decide how to apply the style as well in different contexts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, effective practice is dependent on many factors, such as the selection of the correct learning theory or the correct teaching style. This selection is dependent on the teacher considering the context of situation they are teaching in, such as the national curriculum, the student’s characteristics such as age and ability, and also the teachers own ability and training. Therefore the three dimensions of sport pedagogy overlap, for example in relation to the knowledge in context the teacher may consider the characteristics of the pupils, which may be a group which misbehave a lot. Therefore they use a teaching style such as command style to have more control, which is linked to the teachers and teaching dimension. Therefore it can be seen that a lot of complex decision making happens for the teachers to develop effective practice.
Briefly outline why a models-based approach might be useful for physical education/youth sport and then draw on one example of a model highlighted through the lectures to explain the particular benefits/challenges it has for both teachers/coaches & diverse learners.
A models based approach to physical education and sport is different from the traditional approaches. It provides teachers with a coherent plan to ensure that the learning outcomes of the physical activity are achieved (O’Donovan 2011). Metzler (2005) described some of the benefits of models based practice for teachers, such as that they allow understanding of future events, promotes teacher decision making, and that it involves more valid assessment of learning. Furthermore, models based approaches also have benefits for pupils such as increasing their social and personal outcomes. Therefore models based approaches can be considered more useful than the traditional approaches to physical education, where the teaching programmes were organised around 6-8 week blocks where a certain sport was taught in each block (O’Donovan 2011)
One models based approach that teachers may use is “teaching games for understanding” (TGFU). This is based on pupils developing an understanding on how to play sports through actually playing games, rather than learning skills in a decontextualized way (Herold 2011). Pupils will play a modified version of a complex game, so that it’s appropriate for their social and physical ability (Hooper 2002). Using football as an example they may play a 5 aside football game indoors with smaller goals rather than going straight into a full size match outdoors. However they’ll still be learning the key skills of that game through the experiences they have whilst playing.
A benefit of TGFU is that it develops pupil’s tactical awareness for performing a certain skill during a game. For example a pupil may realise that by running into a space during football means there more likely to receive a pass and keep possession of the ball. This leads to the development of a pupil’s decision making during a game as they’ll know when and how to do a certain skill (Hooper 2002). Hooper (2002) also argues that a further benefit of TGFU for pupils is that it helps them develop a greater factual knowledge of the rules and playing positions of the sport. Therefore in my opinion learning the rules whilst playing the games is a more exciting and engaging way than if a teacher was to list the rules of a sport at the start of the lesson. Therefore TGFU can be seen to improve a pupils tactical awareness and knowledge of the sport, however to partake in a game, pupils must have at least the basic skills to get involved. In Wangs (2013) research, all the teachers being interviewed on their experiences stressed how it was unrealistic to make children with low skill levels to play a game. For example if a pupil was to play a game of football and had never kicked a ball I believe the lesson wouldn’t be beneficial to them as they won’t enjoy the session and could lead to lowering their confidence. Therefore, TGFU can be considered to be only appropriate when the performers have the basic skills in the sport so they can engage well in the lesson. Furthermore, I believe that TGFU can lead to the development of bad habits within the sport. For example if a pupil plays football and starts kicking the ball with their toes rather than the side of the foot because they’ve not learnt the skill of passing correctly first, they then may find it hard to break out of this habit when playing the game properly.
The TGFU model may be beneficial to teachers as it can help with behaviour management. Doolittle (1991) suggested that because the pupils are doing more thinking and are playing a game rather than one skill, there’ll show less disruptive behaviour as they are more interested. Also she argued that it’s easy for a teacher to successfully increase the difficulty of the lesson once the pupils start improving their skills, for example they could add more players and more rules in the game. For example if a teacher was playing netball, once the pupils have learnt how to successfully pass the ball in a team, the teacher could introduce the footwork team rule in the modified game. On the other hand, TGFU lessons can be hard to plan at the start of the learning of a new sport. It’s important that the teacher knows how to produce a modified version of the game, where it stays in the context of the game but doesn’t place too much demand on the pupils (Turner 1996). Therefore it can be seen as difficult for the teacher to get the correct balance between trying to get the pupils to develop decision making skills and tactics in the game, but not to make this learning impossible due to the pupil’s lack of experience. Therefore again TGFU may only be beneficial when the pupils have a large amount of experience and the teacher should know there current ability before planning the lesson.
A further advantage of the TGFU model is that it allows pupils to transfer the skills and tactics from one sport to another more easily (Chandler 1996). For example a pupil may learn how to do a dummy pass in netball, and then could use this skill when playing rugby too. Therefore the teachers job is made easier as the skills that are learnt can be applied to different sports so the teachers don’t have to keep teaching and assessing the same skill performed by the pupils. However it may be difficult for the teachers to assess the improvements of their pupils during a game situation in TGFU compared to watching them performing a skill in isolation. Capel (2000 ) argued that it is easier to quantify and measure isolated skills and techniques, so teachers may feel more confident in assessing pupils progression this way, than trying to assess their decision making skills during a game. Therefore if teachers want to assess pupil’s progression in performing certain skills then the TGFU approach may not be appropriate as it’s not an easy objective way of measuring, and they would be better watching the skill in isolation. Furthermore, a challenge of the TGFU approach for teachers is that there required to have a greater amount of knowledge in the sport they are teaching. For example it would be easier for a teacher to teach simple techniques such as passing a netball, compared to having to watch over a whole netball game. The TGFU requires the teachers to understand and analyse the tactics involved in the sport, so they can give feedback to the pupils on how they are playing.
Overall I believe that the TGFU approach is a useful, relevant model to use when the pupils have developed the basic skills in the sport they are playing and the teachers also have a large breadth of knowledge about tactics and decision making in the sport. However, if this is not the case a possible strategy to overcome the challenges of the TGFU approach, as suggested by French and Graham (1996) is to use both the TGFU model and teach the key skills of the sport as well. Therefore all the pupils will have the basic skills to take part in a modified game which can then lead to them experiencing some of the benefits of TGFU such as a greater tactical awareness and knowledge of the sport. So simply using one model to teach pupils sport is not always the best option, and teachers should be adaptable to using different methods to teach.