IT’S A DIFFERENT BALL GAME! A Critical Look At The Games Curriculum

By Sue Jackson, Dave Jones and Terry Williamson.          

Summary by Jason Leslie.

ISSUE/FOCUS: There is little or no interest in implementing games curriculum in the physical education area in secondary institutions.

REASONING: This article offers to explain why games curriculum has been ignored by conducting first-hand classroom  research. Accompanying Terry Williamson’s article are two works composed by teachers who physically conducted approaches to teach for understanding rather than using the traditional approach.

Sue Jackson and Dave Jones found that games teaching helped students achieve a greater sense of understanding of the rules and tactics of a certain game. They placed students in controlled games, no matter of skill level, and found that students were developing their potential for understanding. 

ASSUMPTIONS: The authors assume that the students are unexploited when taught traditionally because it did not offer opportunities to learn by experience (decision-making, problem-solving, creativity).  It has been suggested that teachers are too conservative and feel threatened by innovation.

The games context in traditional games provide an imbalance among the popular major games for instance, 56% is devoted to invasion games, 18% to striking/fielding and 24% to net games (Williamson, 25). Also, the traditional games context is too skill demanding, where students do not get to utilize their potential because they are put into game-like situations from the beginning.

Williamson suggests that schools such as colleges, promote courses that recognize teaching and coaching awards for traditional games, therefore teachers copy rather than create (24).

CONCLUSION: I found that teaching students using a games-centered approach facilitates understanding the game, achieving a sense of satisfaction and shows more interest compared to a traditional approach.  

SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION: There are numerous points that are worth noting in theses articles, which can be used in future teaching. One of the main points is that it is important to teach using a CHILD PACED progression rather than CLASS PACED because there might be a majority of students who are not ready to proceed to the next stage. Individual progress should be the main focus, not whether the teacher or higher skilled students are ready to proceed.

PERSONAL COMMENTS: Overall I thought these articles supported its arguments well, but main concern is that of time. How much time can a teacher devote to one game or tactic if it breaks down. Most schools use a block curriculum where a teacher has a certain amount of time to teach a game, therefore if this is true the teacher may fall behind.

 I definitely see myself and peers using a games teaching approach in our futures.