Is There A Need To Reflect On Our Games Teaching?

- David Bunker and Rod Thorpe. (1986)

Issues/focus- The purpose of the article is to bring to the attention of the teacher the concept of a “games-centred” approach to teaching games rather then the more typical “technique-centred” approach. (33)

Assumption- Bunker and Thorpe’s concern is that when it comes to a child playing a game, his/her satisfaction can be destroyed when he/she is taught within a P.E. curriculum. (25) The article identifies a problem within the traditional approach to games teaching, as having a “highly structured lessons leaning heavily on the teaching of techniques”, which in turn leads to a ‘content’ based, not a ‘child’ based approach. (26) Bunker and Thorpe explain the effects of this problem by stating, “the uniqueness of games is the ‘decision-making’ process which precedes the technique employed.” (28) If the child learning the game does not have the ability to adapt to the game, the game and the child will suffer for it.

Reasoning- The paper identifies a curriculum model in which children may learn more independently and also at his/her own rate. As seen in class, the model starts with learning the game itself, game appreciation, tactical awareness, decision-making, skill execution, and performance of the game and back to a more advanced understanding of the game. The article uses a simple game of “pig in the middle” as its example. If we change one element of the game we can alter the entire tactile plan of the learner. By changing the point of the game, the “piggy” may learn that he/she can be more effective by marking the receiver rather then marking the thrower. By adapting this game the child can then use components of it in other games, such as basketball.

Conclusion- In concluding, we find that the typical methods of education may have been the best option in the past, but as research has proven those methods often must be revised in order to effectively give our youth the best education we can. Bunker and Thorpe point out that educators may have more success by using tactical understanding of a game with the technique element of the game. This article identifies a problem area in education and gives us some options to help remedy them.

Summary 2

Bunker and Thorpe: Is There A Need For Reflection On Our Games Teaching?

Summary by: Larry Chernoff

Issue/Focus

This article discusses the historical method of PE teaching. It asks those teaching, those taught, and those about to teach to actively and critically think about the success that their methods have accomplished.

Reasoning:

A Traditional Approach:

Present teaching methods require a high level of skill to be successful and concentrate heavily on technique. The authors contest that technique development distracts from many other elements vital to game play. The training and experience of these teachers results in this dilemma (the problem is self perpetuating).

Having a quantifiable outcome (successful skill execution) is a very good motivator for skill development, this is compounded by the BC IRP stating desired measurable outcomes for students at each grade level. The difficulty begins with a mixed ability class, with a low skill student participating against a skilled peer group their inability to perform is now compounded (so why is the dropout so high, I wonder…).

The students ability to problem solve in a class setting with teacher guidance is very high, but putting them in the game situation and ask them to trouble shoot and it won’t happen. The teacher has given too much and asked not enough from the students capacity to interpret play. Bunker and Thorpe propose that teachers must ask themselves why are they teaching games? Is it for a particular skill, or rather to get students to score points. In order to accomplish points scoring students need to understand the rules of the game, solutions to possession, space, and scoring.

Assumptions:

The authors assume that the present method is unsuccessful in all situations and in all cases. They do not address that in the initial learning phases of a skill it is better to have more of a teacher-lead style as the students will not have any back ground in the movement so guidance and modeling work well. They also assume that technique does not easily lend itself to tactic. They do not address this in detail and seem to be preaching to a certain audience while not really giving anyone else an opportunity to form an opinion.

Conclusion:

The key is to get recognition of how games introduce concepts that can be applied across game categories.

The authors provide an alternative as their conclusion and it is as follows.

The Alternative:

Move the focus back to the game.
It is important to think about rules in order for players to understand their roles.
Mixed ability students can play successfully.
Encourage students to make decisions.
Use existing skills to solve problems in the game, this allows students to see how new skills could help play and motivates them to learn.
The absolute ability (performance) of the player is not vital to entering the tactical game.

To execute this Alternative plan it is necessary to build upon already existing ideas or simple ones while developing more complex ideas happens gradually.

The Games Centred Approach:

i) Games are used at the Primary level to develop basic skill.

ii) Lead-up and mini-games develop skills of specific games.

The key is to get recognition of how games introduce concepts that can be applied across game categories.