long-term implementation of sport education and step-game ... · ensino. o modelo de abordagem...

Long-term Implementation of Sport Education and Ste p-Game Approach:

The Development of Students’ Volleyball Competence and Student-

Coaches’ Instructional Skills

Rui Manuel Flores Araújo

Orientadora

Isabel Mesquita, PhD

Coorientador

Peter A. Hastie, PhD

Dissertação apresentada com vista à obtenção do grau de Doutor no âmbito do

curso de Doutoramento em Ciência do Desporto, organizado pelo Centro de

Investigação e Inovação em Desporto (CIFI2D), da Faculdade de Desporto da

Universidade do Porto, nos termos do Decreto-Lei nº 74/2006 de 24 de Março.

Porto, 2015

II

Ficha de Catalogação

Araújo, R. (2015). Long-term Implementation of Sport Education and Step-

Game Approach: The Development of Students’ Volleyball Competence and

Student-Coaches’ Instructional Skills. Dissertação de Doutoramento em Ciência

do Desporto apresentada à Faculdade de Desporto da Universidade do Porto.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: APRENDIZAGEM, ESTUDO LONGITUDINAL, MODELO

DE ABORDAGEM PROGRESSIVA AO JOGO, MODELO DE EDUCAÇÃO

DESPORTIVA, VOLEIBOL.

Funding A presente Dissertação foi financiada pela Fundação para a Ciência e a

Tecnologia (FCT) através de uma Bolsa de Doutoramento Individual

(SFRH/BD/72361/2010).

V

Dedicado aos meus pais

"Se queres a bolota filho, trepa a ela... Só depende de ti."

VII

Acknowledgements

Muito obrigado Professora Isabel Mesquita por toda a orientação, não só neste

doutoramento, mas também em toda a minha vida académica. Muito obrigado

por ter visto algo em mim. Muito obrigado pelos desafios propostos e por me ter

ensinado a viver fora da minha zona de conforto. Muito obrigado, acima de

tudo, por lutar sempre por nós.

Thank you senhor. Thank you Professor Peter Hastie for all the support during

these 5 years. Thank you for the hospitality, for being always available, and of

course for the 50-cent ice creams... Thank you very much for showing how a

human being should be.

Paulo, sempre disponível para tudo. Muito obrigado pela disponibilidade

demonstrada ao longo dos três anos. Sei que muitas vezes não foi fácil.

Obrigado também por todas as nossas conversas.

Obrigado Professora Paula Batista, Professor Amândio e Professor Maia. Muito

obrigado pelas conversas, ajuda, sugestões e desafios.

Muito obrigado aos meus colegas de gabinete Afonso, Cristiana, Mário e

Patrícia. Sem vocês, isto não era o mesmo. Muito obrigado por todo o

companheirismo, preocupação e boa disposição demonstrada desde o primeiro

momento. Muito obrigado pela vossa ajuda neste trabalho.

Muito obrigado a todos os amigos da faculdade. Alexandre, Cláudio, Diana,

Lorenzo, Mariana, Rúben e Tiago. Obrigado pelas conversas, trocas de ideias,

companheirismo e, acima de tudo, por toda a boa disposição que tornou tudo

isto bastante mais fácil.

Obrigado a todos treinadores e diretores do Castêlo da Maia Ginásio Clube.

Muito obrigado pela força e pela confiança depositada mas, acima de tudo, por

VIII

toda a paciência e compreensão durante a realização deste trabalho. Um

agradecimento especial à Beatriz Santos, Carlos Duarte, José Martins, Lorenzo

Laporta, Ricardo Araújo e Sandra Maia. Muito obrigado, pela ajuda, pelo

respeito, pelo desafio e, acima de tudo, obrigado por serem os “pense-bêtes”

que tanto precisei. É um privilégio poder trabalhar com vocês.

Muito obrigado a toda a minha família e amigos. Obrigado pela ajuda mas,

mais do que isso, obrigado por terem paciência comigo naqueles momentos

que não estive com vocês. Em especial, muito obrigado Andreia Castro e Rita

Marques por terem sido as irmãs que nunca tive.

Se este percurso trouxe muita coisa boa, sem dúvida que foste a mais

importante. Obrigado Ana por seres quem és. Por seres o porto seguro que fez

de mim uma pessoa melhor. Obrigado por toda a ajuda, dedicação e por tudo o

que todos os dias fazes por mim e por nós. Obrigado principalmente pela

paciência que tens comigo. Eu sei que muitas vezes não sou fácil. Espero que

esta tenha sido apenas uma das nossas aventuras. Independentemente do que

venha, uma coisa é certa. Vamos enfrentá-la juntos.

"Se queres a bolota filho, trepa a ela... Só depende de ti". Uma das primeiras

coisas que me disseram e tem me acompanhado sempre nos últimos anos.

Vejam onde chegámos. Obrigado por me terem ajudado a cá chegar. Obrigado

pelo apoio, força, carinho e pela admiração em silêncio, mesmo sem nunca

"perceberem muito bem o que andava eu a fazer". Espero que vos tenha

deixado orgulhosos. Decididamente, este trabalho é dedicado a vocês....

Bem... Que caminho este. 5 anos, orientadores fantásticos, amigos

espetaculares e ainda uma tese. Não poderia pedir mais. Mais uma vez, muito

obrigado a todos por isto.

IX

General Index

Index of Figures …………………………………………………………….. XI

Index of Tables ……………………………………………………………… XIII

Resumo ………………………………………………………………………. XV

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………. XVII

Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………….. XIX

I. Introduction ……………………………………………………………….. 1

1.1. Importance of the dissertation …………………………………... 3

1.2. Research problems and aims ……………………………………. 16

1.3. Structure of the dissertation ……………………………….......... 17

1.4. References ………………………………………………………...... 21

II. Review Article

Review of the Status of Learning in Research on Sport Education:

Future Research and Practice…………………………………………...

29

III. Empirical Studies ……………………………………………………….. 67

Empirical Study 1

Students’ game performance improvements during a hybrid sport

education–step-game-approach volleyball unit………………………...

69

Empirical Study 2

The instructional evolution of the student-coach in a combined used

of Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach....................................

95

Empirical Study 3

The long-term development of volleyball competence using Sport

Education and Step-Game-Approach models………………………....

127

IV. Final Considerations …………………………………………………… 153

XI

Index of Figures

Review Article

Figure 1 - Decision flowchart for identified studies……………………. 34

Empirical Study 1

Figure 1 - Students' game performance improvements throughout

the season………………………..........................................................

84

Empirical Study 3

Figure 1 - Individual and mean change curves………………………... 141

Figure 2 - Predictions from the nonlinear model effect of time………. 143

XIII

Index of Tables

Introduction

Table 1 – Structure of the dissertation………………………………….. 20

Review Article

Table 1 – Study quality checklist with quality scores assigned…….... 36

Table 2 – Overview of the studies included in this review……………. 38

Empirical Study 1

Table 1 - Sport Education-SGA Volleyball unit outline.………………. 78

Table 2 - Instructional checklist…………………………………………. 80

Table 3 - Student performance for all Indexes……………………….... 83

Table 4 - Performance for all indexes by students’ sex………………. 85

Table 5 - Performance for All Indexes by students’ skill-level……….. 86

Empirical Study 2

Table 1 – Unit plans for the three Sport Education-SGA seasons…... 102

Table 2 – Student-coaches’ preparation during the second season… 108

Table 3 - Student-coaches’ preparation during the third season……. 115

Empirical Study 3

Table 1 – Unit plans for the three Sport Education-SGA seasons….. 134

Table 2 - Instructional checklist.………………………………………… 138

Table 3 - Game play performance across three seasons……………. 140

Table 4 - Model comparisons……………………………………………. 141

Table 5 - Model summary………………………………………………... 142

XV

Resumo

A presente dissertação teve como propósito central examinar a aprendizagem

dos alunos e a evolução instrucional dos estudantes-treinadores durante a

participação em três unidades híbridas do Modelo de Educação Desportiva e

do Modelo de Abordagem Progressiva ao Jogo. Recorreu-se à observação

sistemática com utilização do Game Performance Assessment Instrument para

analisar a evolução do desempenho dos alunos na modalidade de Voleibol ao

longo de três unidades. Para além disso, a evolução instrucional dos

estudantes-treinadores foi analisada através da observação das aulas, notas

de campo e entrevistas aos alunos. Os resultados sugerem que a aplicação

híbrida dos dois modelos instrucionais se revelou profícua, não só para a

evolução dos alunos na modalidade de Voleibol, independentemente do seu

sexo e nível de habilidade, como também para a melhoria instrucional dos

estudantes-treinadores. Em particular, a aplicação de mais do que uma

unidade consecutiva no tempo permitiu que os estudantes se familiarizassem

de forma progressiva com a organização da aula, reduzindo o tempo

despendido em tarefas de gestão da aula, dedicando mais tempo às tarefas de

ensino. O Modelo de Abordagem Progressiva ao Jogo mostrou-se ainda curial

para estas melhorias, ao fornecer uma estrutura didática para o ensino do

Voleibol. Os protocolos de preparação aplicados permitiram a evolução na

capacidade instrucional dos estudantes-treinadores. Mais especificamente, na

primeira unidade os estudantes-treinadores revelaram dificuldades na

apresentação e modificação das tarefas, bem como no diagnóstico do erro e

emissão de feedback apropriado. Após a aplicação de dois protocolos de

preparação destes alunos, estas dificuldades iniciais foram ultrapassadas, o

que permitiu uma gradual transferência de responsabilidade do professor para

os estudantes-treinadores.

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: APRENDIZAGEM, ESTUDO LONGITUDINAL, MODELO DE ABORDAGEM PROGRESSIVA AO JOGO, MODELO DE EDUCAÇÃO DESPORTIVA, VOLEIBOL.

XVII

Abstract

The present dissertation aimed to analyze the effectiveness of the combined

used of Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach models beyond a single

season experience on students’ learning and student-coaches’ instructional

evolution. In particular, a systematic observation of students’ game play

performance through the use of the Game Performance Assessment Instrument

was applied, in order to analyse students’ game play improvements throughout

the application of three hybrid Sport Education-Step-Game-Approach Volleyball

units. Video observations, field notes and students’ interviews were used to

scrutinized student-coaches’ instructional difficulties within peer-assisted tasks,

and to evaluate the impact of specific protocols of student-coaches’ instructional

preparation throughout the three seasons. Results revealed that all participants,

regardless of their sex and skill-level, improved from their first experience with

both models at the seventh-grade through the end of the ninth-grade season.

Students became progressively familiarized with Sport Education organizational

features throughout the three seasons, spent less time on those tasks and,

consequently, spent more time on learning tasks. The application of the

protocols for student-coaches’ preparation during the second and third seasons

showed also to be effective for their instructional evolution. In particular, during

the first season student-coaches showed the inability to organize the tasks with

their teammates, to identify performance errors and provide feedback to them,

as well as, to modify the tasks whenever that was necessary. By the use of a

number of pedagogical strategies during the protocols, these instructional

difficulties were solved, which allowed a gradual release of instruction from the

teacher to the student-coaches.

KEYWORDS: LONGITUDINAL DESIGN; SPORT EDUCATION MODEL; STEP

GAME APPROACH MODEL; STUDENTS’ LEARNING; VOLLEYBALL

XIX

Abbreviations

PE – Physical Education

DIM – Direct Instruction Model

SE – Sport Education

TGfU – Teaching Games for Understanding

ICGM – Invasion Games Competence Model

TG – Tactical Games

SGA – Step-Game-Approach

FADEUP – Faculty of Sports of the University of Porto

STROBE – Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

CONSORT – Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

N – number

ANOVA – Analysis of Variance

PreT – pretest

PosT – posttest

Ret – retention test

DM - Decision Making

ADJ – Adjust

SE – Skill Efficiency

SEF – Skill Efficacy

GP - Game Performance

GI – Game Involvement

FCT – Foundation for Science and Technology

I. Introduction

_________________________________________________

Introduction

3

1. Introduction

1.1. Rationale

Model-based instruction in Physical Education

The importance that sport plays in the human lives has been widely

recognized, notably its contribution to the physical, emotional, personal and

social development of human beings (Coulter & Choróinín, 2013; Ozoliņš &

Stolz, 2013). As Ozoliņš and Stolz states (2013, p. 887), “much more than any

other activity, it [sport] has the power to bring the divide between individuals to

an end, at the very least, closing the gap”. This issue has justified the inclusion

of sport in school curricula through Physical Education (PE) (Ozoliņš & Stolz,

2013) in many countries around the world for at least a century (Puhse &

Gerber, 2005). In this vein, health- and fitness-related considerations regarding

sport have been identified as the most influence ideologies within PE (Green,

1998; Penney, 1998; Kirk, 1999; Penney & Evans, 1999; Lake, 2001; Green,

2008; Kretchmar, 2008). As pointed out by Coulter and Choróunín (2013, p.

829), “while health discourses around the promotion of lifelong physical activity

are central to the framing of PE through school curricula, sport and team games

continue to play a central role in the daily practices of physical education.”

Notwithstanding, PE encompasses much more than this dyad, and should

aim to promote multiple learning outcomes, covering all domains of learning.

Alexander and Luckman (2001, p. 255) state the “5 big aims of PE”, namely:

motor skill development, tactical knowledge and performance, fitness, personal

and social development (e.g., cooperation, empathy, self-discipline), and

student attitudes and values (e.g., enthusiasm, enjoyment). In the words of

Ozoliņš and Stolz (2013, p. 888) PE “is important because: (i) it is learning

about one’s body and hence oneself through some sort of physical activity or

human movement; (ii) learning about an important way in which people share

their lives; and, (iii) it has the potential to develop the whole person. Not

everyone will be a sportsman or sportswoman, just as not everyone will be a

writer or a mathematician. This, however, does not mean that we do not need to

Introduction

4

learn to read and write and be numerate. Similarly, we need to learn something

about how our bodies work and to develop an understanding of ourselves as

physical beings who mediate the world through our physical senses.”

However, some relevant shortcomings should be properly addressed. For

example, the multi-activity curriculum with short units has been dominant in PE

(Gerdin & Pringle, in press; Kirk, 2010). This curriculum embraces a

smorgasbord of activities all within one year, leading to brief lessons with time

being further eroded by management rituals and low learning time, short units

with reduced instruction, and an excessive focus on keeping students ‘busy,

happy and good’ (Placek, 1983). Frequently, the program contents result from

particular interests and conveniences of the teacher, often comprehending the

teaching of sport skills in a decontextualized and seemingly socially irrelevant

manner (Kirk, 2010). The multi-activity curriculum embraces a wide range and

diverse educational goals, which are rarely if ever achieved (Kirk, 2010, 2013;

Lock, 1992). Most often than not this leads to a somewhat ambiguous place of

PE with the curriculum (Ozoliņš & Stolz, 2013).

It is therefore not surprising that the multi-activity curriculum is not

deprived of criticism (Taylor & Chiogioji, 1987). Locke (1992) calls this model a

‘programmatic lemon’ (p. 363) since it is related with student disaffection, the

failure to provide students with the opportunity to master any one activity, and

also the marginalisation of PE. In fact, Locke highlighted student alienation,

demoralization, negative attitudes and pessimistic data from a growing number

of literature, which reported teachers’ and students’ perceptions within PE.

In addition, this type of curriculum is also linked with learning inequities

within PE. Given the fact that this approach keeps changing the sport being

taught, it does not provide students the time and opportunity to master any one

activity. Therefore, the individual rhythm of learning is not preserved and,

consequently, this curriculum promotes the perpetuation of gender and skill-

level iniquities (Flintoff & Scraton, 2001). This criticism provides a reasonable

enough basis for concluding that what has conventionally been offered in the

name of PE has been a failure. Kirk (2010) even warns of the precarious

Introduction

5

situation of PE given the continued dominance of the multi-activity curriculum

and its resistance to change.

Accepting the notion that “skilful game play takes time” (Rink et al., 1996,

p. 494) the length of the unit plays a key role with PE. Several authors (e.g.

Mesquita, 2012; Mesquita el al., 2005; Siedentop et al. 2011) have been

enhancing therefore the vale of longer units (no less than 20 lessons) in order to

promote students’ learning. Nevertheless, the application of the same activity

over an extended period over time requires a well-defined plan that can guide

teachers and students throughout each content of the unit (Metzler, 2011).

Model-based instruction has been advocated as a mean to fill this need

(Casey, 2014; Dyson et al., 2004). Indeed, “instructional models are based on

an alignment of learning theory, long-term goals, context, content, classroom

management, related teaching strategies, verification of process and the

assessment of student learning” (Metzler, 2011, p. 8). This author summarizes

the importance of model-based instruction as (i) providing an overall plan and

coherent approach; (ii) clarifying learning domain priorities and interactions; (iii)

providing an instructional theme; (iv) allowing teacher and students alike to

understand the on-going teaching and learning process; (v) furnishing a unified

theoretical framework; (vi) being grounded on research; (vii) promoting a

technical language for teachers; (viii) allowing the relationship between

instruction and learning to be verified; (ix) allowing for more valid assessment of

learning; (x) encouraging teachers decision making within an unified framework;

and (xi) directly promoting specific standards and learning outcomes.

From teacher-centred to student-centred instructional models

The Direct Instruction Model (DIM; Rosenshine, 1979) has been the most

traditionally and widely adopted over the last years (Kirk, 2010). In this teacher-

centred approach the teacher is undoubtedly the instructional leader, who

explicitly and formally dictates and circumscribes all aspects of the learning

process, such as the involvement of students in the learning tasks. Students

perform a largely passive role, with reduced or no autonomy, performing a set

of tasks which are rarely understood with respect to their rationale, advantages

Introduction

6

and disadvantages. Students progress continuously, with constant monitoring

and evaluation by the teacher (Frosnot, 1998). This instructional model is

clearly affiliated on the behaviourist learning theory, which frames learning as a

process of stimulus and response where the individual is largely considered an

automaton, a passive element that remains inactive until subject to external

stimulation (Vanderstraeten, 2002). Learning results are thus an accurate

representation of external stimuli, believing that observing and listening to the

explanations provided by teachers as well as participation in activities,

experiments or practical sessions are factors explaining learning (Frosnot,

1998). This teacher-centred approach (i.e., the teacher controls almost all

aspects of the teaching and learning process) has achieved minimal levels of

student autonomy, perceptions of competency and relatedness (Hastie, 2012).

As such, the role of the student in learning process cannot be

underestimated any further (Rink, 2001). Society has been demanding schools

to educate individuals that are capable of acting autonomously in a responsible

and committed way, adept in the face of challenges, risks and opportunities

they encounter. This urged the need to implement learning environments seen

from the educational reform of the 1990s that allocate the student at the centre

of the learning process (Penney & Chandler, 2000). These learning

environments should take into account the person who lives inside the student

(Mesquita, 2012), with its singular experiences, motivations and particular

difficulties (Rink, 2001). The student should be renewed to become more of a

“thinker” rather than merely a “doer” (Mesquita, 2012). On the other hand, the

teacher is expected to move away from the central stage and serve as a

facilitator of learning, purposely shifting “responsibility to the student engaged in

authentic, meaningful, and learning tasks” (Dyson et al., 2004, p. 226). This

need justified to a large extent the evolution of behavioural learning paradigms

into constructivists learning paradigms, which grant proper space to the

discovery and initiative of the students (Mesquita, 2013). Piaget’s and

Vygotsky’s learning proposals, although contrasting, have contribute to this

evolution.

Piaget’s (1896-1980) constructivism approach asserts that learning is an

Introduction

7

active, contextualized process of constructing of knowledge rather passively

receiving it. Learners should have the opportunity to react from the stimuli that

surrounds them, building, modifying and interpreting the information they

encounter in this relation with the environment (Morgan, 2007; Von Glasersfeld,

1995). Learning should not therefore be a exact representation of external

experiences, but rather an adaptation of the subject to these stimuli, through a

mapping of actions and conceptual operations considered as viable on the

experience of the “knowing subject” (Von Glasersfeld, 1998). Learning takes

place in the mind of the person, experiencing and hypothesising about the world

as they encounter it, whilst moving through pre-set stages of life (Weiner et al.,

2003).

Vygotsky (1986) saw as inadequate learning tasks that only contemplated

solving individual problems for the learner, claiming that the student learning

process in cooperation with the teacher or with their peers, constituted a more

viable form of assess the capabilities of apprentices. Vygotsky’s view of learning

underpins a “modern constructivism”, i.e., socio-constructivism, which asserts

that social interaction is fundamental to learning. Vygotsky believed that social

learning precedes development and proposed that children learn through social

interaction with adults and more capable peers (Morgan, 2007). This view

encourages learners to work together to achieve common goals and provides

the opportunity for the learners to help each others (Dyson et al., 2004). Within

this context, the “More Knowledgeable Other” (Vygotsky, 1978) is key to a

sound cognitive development and is normally thought of as being a teacher, a

coach, or another adult, but it might also be a peer or a sibling (Corden, 2000).

This would afford learners to work on their Zone of Proximal Development

(Vygotsky, 1978), i.e., the distance between a student’s ability to perform a task

under adult guidance or peer collaboration, and the student’s ability for solving

the problem independently.

The way students learn influences the way teachers teach (Entwistle &

Entwistle, 1991). This change in the learning paradigm has therefore promoted

an evolution from teacher-centred approaches to student-centred approaches

(i.e., students build their own learning, with enhanced role of their cognitive

Introduction

8

processes, decision-making and autonomy) (Ennis, 2014). Nowadays, a wide

number of student-centred instructional models are available to PE teachers,

each of them proposing specific teaching goals. Among such models, we

highlight Sport Education (SE; Siedentop, 1994), Cooperative Learning (Slavin,

1995) and Personal and Social Responsibility (Hellison, 2011). In addition,

variants of the original British conceptualization of games teaching termed

Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU; Bunker & Thorpe, 1982) can also

be identified as student-centred approaches. These include Tactical Games

(TG; Griffin et al., 1997; Mitchell et al., 2003, 2006), Game Sense (Light, 2013;

Thorpe, 1996), Play Practice (Launder, 2001), Invasion Games Competence

Model (IGCM; Mesquita et al., 2012), Tactical Decision Learning Model

(Gréhaigne et al. 2005), and Games Concept Approach (Rossi et al., 2006).

The Sport Education model: conceptualization, structure and research

Within Physical Education, constructivist and socio-constructivists ideas

find voice on the Sport Education model (Siedentop et al., 2011), which

allocates the student to the centre of the teaching and learning process and

adopts more implicit and less formal strategies when compared to other models

traditionally used in the school context (Metzler, 2011). In SE, the control of the

teaching and learning environment progressively moves from the teacher to the

students, who are allocated within teams and assigned with greater

responsibility and autonomy in organizing and managing the activity.

First introduced in the 1980s, the model was derived from Daryl

Siedentop’s doctoral dissertation (Siedentop, 1968), where he advocated the

placement of play education curriculum theory in a preeminent place in the

curriculum guidelines of PE. Siedentop (2002, p. 411) argued that “cultures of

physically active play are fundamentally important to collective social life, and

bringing children and youth into contact with those cultures through

educationally sound practices was sufficient to justify physical education as a

school subject” (Siedentop, 2002). This vision of PE was promulgated from

1970-1980 and Jewett and Bain (1985) accepted it as an autonomous curricular

model. It was in 1982 that Siedentop first proposed the creation of the model,

Introduction

9

during a presentation under the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. The

consolidation of the model's conceptual bases was achieved in 1994, with the

presentation of a book entitled "Sport Education: Quality PE through positive

sport experience" (Siedentop, 1994), which established the validation of the

mode as a pedagogical tool and object of scientific inquiry.

Siedentop’s development of the model spurred from his perception that

PE, even when taught effectively, was not interesting or challenging enough to

inspire students (Siedentop, 2002). The author (1994, p. 7) criticized the

presentation of a “decontextualized physical education” in short units, in which

games and sports are taught in ways that rarely resemble the authentic sport

experience, and do not promote a solid understanding of game play. Therefore,

SE was designed to provide students authentic and rich sport experiences in

the context of PE, helping them to develop as competent, literate and

enthusiastic sports players (Siedentop et al., 2011). In Siedentop’s (2002, p.

411) own words: “I mean competent in the sense that they are knowledgeable

game players. I mean literate in the sense that they understand and value sport,

and can distinguish between good and bad sport practices. I mean enthusiastic

in the sense that they participate and behave in ways that preserve, protect,

and enhance sport cultures. These purpose have a strong cultural emphasis;

Sport Education has always been defined as a process through which sport

cultures might grow and prosper as humanizing influences in the lives of nations

and their citizens”.

Siedentop (1994) crafted six key-features that mimic the authentic form of

institutionalized sport within the larger culture. These include (i) seasons, (ii)

affiliation, (iii) formal competition, (iv) record keeping, (v) festive climate and (vi)

culminating events. Therefore, SE offers students an authentic learning

environment in which the traditional multi-activity units are replaced by longer

sport seasons. These include training sessions, formal competitive matches,

performance records, and equitable participation during an extensive period of

time. A festive climate takes place within the season and students develop

autonomy and curriculum ownership through cooperative learning activities.

Furthermore, aligned wit contemporary institutionalized sport, students are

Introduction

10

affiliated to the same teams throughout the unit. Within these teams students

take upon performance of within-team and within-matches sports-based roles

other than that of player (e.g., coach, referee, scorekeeper, statistician and

member of the sports organizing board). The culminating event marks the end

of the season and a variety of awards are presented (such as final standings,

referee, fair play, and participation awards).

Research on SE has provided a compelling argument for its effectiveness

in PE programs, with more than 160 data based empirical papers identified to

date. Sport Education research has highlighted evidences concerning the

achievement of those goals, with reviews being conducted by Wallhead and

O'Sullivan (2005), Kinchin (2006), Hastie et al. (2011), and Hastie (2012).

Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2005) organized their review according to the “5 big

aims of PE” (Alexander & Luckman, 2001, p. 254), notably motor skill

development, knowledge and understanding, fitness, social development, and

values and attitudes. They suggested there is empirical evidence on the efficacy

of the model in eliciting its goals. In particular, the affiliation feature of SE

promotes personal and social development, specifically in the form of student

responsibility, cooperation and trust skills. Nevertheless, the same authors also

highlighted the student leadership skills as potentially problematic for effective

content development and the promotion of an equitable participation.

Kinchin (2006) focused his review on the perceptions of student and

teachers. On one hand, students referred their preference of SE when

compared to traditional approaches. In particular, they enjoyed being given the

opportunity to be affiliated with a group of teammates over an extended period

of time and to have increased responsibility and ownership within the lessons.

Students also highlighted high levels of seriousness regarding their participation

in the various roles of the model. On the other hand, teachers appreciated

stepping out of centre-stage and consequently having the opportunity to take on

more supporting roles, as well as the increased students’ interest in PE.

In 2011, Hastie et al. conducted a review of research on Sport Education

in order to identify any new trends in research since the review of Wallhead and

O'Sullivan (2005), and to describe the extent to which the limitations and future

Introduction

11

research directions of the original review were addressed. This update

summarized that “since the 2005 review, there has been not only an expansion

in the number of studies relating to Sport Education, but also the initiation of

research in a number of new contexts, as well as those focused on new

research questions. An analytic induction of these papers has placed them into

three categories: (1) expanded sites of implementation; (2) students’

motivational responses; and (3) learning to teach Sport Education (Hastie et al.,

2011, p. 103)”. More recently, Hastie (2012) organized his review regarding the

central goals of the model. This author reported that support for competency

was “burgeoning and developing”, evidences for literacy was “emerging”, and

students’ enthusiasm have been “significantly substantiated”.

SE research has therefore been showing an unequivocal and positive

impact of the model on students’ personal and social development, motivation,

as well as in their sense of belonging (Hastie et al., 2011). Notwithstanding, with

respect to competence, and although research has already recognized the

potential of SE in developing students’ skill and tactical awareness (e.g., Hastie,

1998b; Hastie et al., 2013; Hastie et al., 2009; Pritchard et al., 2008), some

authors have been enhancing key factors that warrant further investigation

within this area, such as (Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2005): (i)

the lack of longitudinal studies that analyse SE beyond a single season; (ii) the

lack of attention paid to the actual content being taught and learned, and to the

nature of learning tasks within the instructional task system of the season; and

(iii) the need to examine the dynamic of peer interaction and subsequent

content learning and performance that occurs during student-led tasks of the

curriculum.

Longitudinal data collection designs

Longitudinal data collection extending beyond a single SE season has

been highlighted as one of the factors that warrant further examination. To date,

research is limited to a single season experience (Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead

& O'Sullivan, 2005). In fact, time is a key factor to help students learn and feel

comfortable with the change from a teacher-directed to a student-driven model

Introduction

12

(Brunton, 2003; Hastie, 1998a, 1998b; Hastie et al., 2013; Mesquita et al., 2012;

Pritchard et al., 2008). The complexity of the organization of activities within SE

(distributing roles, establishing formal competition, allocating students to teams,

among others), while important and necessary, may also have an impact on the

time available for learning. Further, the extension of SE beyond a single unit

experience could allow the analysis of critical elements for the teaching and

learning process. As Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2005) refer, an extended

implementation of the model throughout a reasonable period of time might

benefit the dynamics of social and instructional system within the season, and

consequently improve student’s learning.

Emergence of hybrid models

The lack of attention paid to the actual content being taught and learned,

coupled with the nature of learning tasks within the instructional task system of

the season has also been identified as another gap of research on SE

(Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2007). Despite the fact SE affords extensive game

practice, its primary concern relies on the organizational structuring and on the

authenticity of the learning process (Pill et al., 2012). Specifically, the emphasis

of SE is the promotion of a more democratic and inclusive pedagogy, by

focusing on the pedagogical environment within the lesson, such as the roles

assumed by teachers and students (Siedentop et al., 2011). Given the

“outward-focus” (Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006, p. 23) of the model, it is

therefore not surprising that several authors called for “hybrid models”, that is,

alliances between the organizational characteristics of SE (persisting teams,

formal competitions, roles etc.) and other forms of game based instruction with

specific framework to the content and learning tasks to be taught during the

season.

The TGfU was the first instructional model to fill this gap of SE (Hastie &

Curtner-Smith, 2006), since research has enhanced the effectiveness of this

model in the improvement of both students’ decision-making and skill execution.

Although SE and TGfU stand for distinctive educational foci, this two models

share several conceptual and pedagogical principles. The combination of both

Introduction

13

can be used to design meaningful, purposeful, and authentic learning activities

for students (Dyson et al., 2004). When combining SE and TGfU, Hastie and

Curtner-Smith (2006) found the act of teaching to be particularly labour-

intensive, and given the need for the teacher to drive and give momentum to the

proceedings, the authors demanded that the teacher possess superior content

and pedagogical content knowledge.

Notwithstanding, the specificity of tactics within team sports (in particular

the differentiation between invasion and non-invasion games) made it

necessary to build models that attended to this specificity, which was not taken

into account by TGfU (Mesquita et al., 2012). Based on the acknowledged

synergies within and between SE and TGfU, a number of other hybrid models

have also been developed (e.g. IGCM, Mesquita et al., 2012; TG, Pritchard et

al., 2014). In the IGCM the specific nature of invasion games and the

importance of specialized teaching are considered (Belka, 2004). In addition,

tasks are aligned with the situational demands related to the play of basic forms

of invasion games and are structured on chained basic forms and supported by

partial game forms and game like tasks (Graça & Mesquita, 2003). In a study

explicitly designed to analyse the impact of a hybrid SE-IGCM on students’

improvements, Mesquita et al. (2012) found that a SE environment sustained by

the learning tasks structure provided by the ICGM offered students the

possibility to improve their skill execution and decision-making, especially girls

and students of lower skill-level. Pritchard et al. (2014) aimed to investigate the

effectiveness of a combined used of SE and TG models on male and female

students in coeducational and single sex classes in middle school physical

education. These authors found improvements on basketball game play

performance for males and females of both classes.

The Step-Game-Approach model

To date and to our knowledge, no study has answered these calls in

regard to non-invasion games, such as volleyball, badminton and tennis

(Harvey & Jarret, 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2005). The

Step-Game-Approach model (SGA; Mesquita et al., 2005) might have the

Introduction

14

potential to provide an appropriate framework to the development of game play

ability in a step-by-step game play environment, namely by facing students with

problems sought to challenge their capacity for understanding and performing

game play (Mesquita et al., 2005). Three types of instructional approach sustain

this approach, namely adaptation tasks, structuring tasks and acquisition tasks

(Pereira et al., 2011). SGA research has shown the effectiveness of this model

in the development of the volleyball game play performance (Mesquita et al.,

2005). In particular, Mesquita et al. (2005) where aiming to the renewal of the

teaching of volleyball in school context, and have found that the school class as

a whole made significant improvements in several measures of game

performance either in technical or tactical domains. Notwithstanding, girls and

students of lower skill-level seemed to benefit more from such approaches than

boys and students of higher skill-level. Given all of these, a hybrid Sport

Education–Step-Game-Approach unit (SE-SGA) might have the potential to

reach the affective and social teaching goals of Sport Education, simultaneously

taking into account the didactical framework of teaching a non-invasion sport

(Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006; Mesquita et al., 2012).

Differentiating the effect of sex and skill-level on students’ learning

SE research related with students’ competence has also been enhancing

a differentiating effect of students’ sex and skill-level. In particular, studies

focused on teachers’ and students’ perceptions combined with empirical

measurement have reported superior learning opportunities for boys and higher

skill-level students, due to the apparent dominance of these students in the

social and instructional agenda (Alexander & Luckman, 2001; Brock et al.,

2009; Hastie, 1998a, 1998b; Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006; Hastie et al., 2009).

Notwithstanding, other studies revealed superior learning opportunities for girls

and lower skill-level students (Carlson & Hastie, 1997; Mesquita et al., 2012). It

is therefore not surprising that several authors call for quantitative research

concerning opportunities for practice in model-based units, namely through the

analysis of students’ improvements according to skill-level and sex (Pereira et

al., 2015). In this way, by analysing students’ improvements beyond a single

Introduction

15

season experience with a combined use of SE and SGA models, and taking into

account students’ sex and skill level, this study also might have the ability to

provide a more complete account of the impact of this hybrid approach.

The qualitative examination of the teaching and learning process

SE research has been conducted to analyse the effectiveness of the

model in achieving its goals, through the use of quasi-experimental (pre-test

and post-test), descriptive, and exploratory (teachers’ and students’ responses

to the model) designs. However necessary, this trend of research only allows a

superficial assessment of the model. In this way, research need to move

forward, namely venturing into the study of the complexity of the teaching and

learning processes and the dynamics of students’ and teachers’ interactions

within the model. These studies would add to those seeking answers to

questions such as ‘does it work’, with those asking about ‘why and how each

model works’ and even more important, ‘how it can be improved’.

Undoubtedly, one of the areas of the teaching and learning process that

call for more research is the analysis of student-coach leadership skills and

instructional competence within the peer-assisted tasks of SE (Hastie, 2000;

Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O'Sullivan, 2005). While the potential lack of

effective student leadership within peer-assisted tasks has been recognized as

a possible reason for some teachers’ and researchers’ scepticism (Alexander &

Luckman, 2001; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005) and probably for the scarce

evidence on the student’s learning outcomes, analysis of the dynamics of

student interaction in the peer-assisted tasks are still scant. Indeed, only

Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2007) have examined the content development during

these tasks in a SE unit, while no other authors have included student’s learning

outcomes using the same design. Siedentop (1995, p. 22) had already claimed

“a void exists in how to identify, teach, and provide practice for the leadership

skills necessary for successful coaching within the tasks of the SE curriculum”.

Here, research on SE should embody the need to examine the dynamics of the

peer-assisted tasks (and its evolution) related with content development and the

use of power by student coaches in relation to their teammates. It should also

Introduction

16

attempt to control how the devolution of both is transmitted from teacher to

students. This is particularly relevant given Wallhead and O’Sullivan’s (2007)

finding of student-coaches’ inability to elaborate content through appropriate

demonstration, error diagnosis and task modification.

1.2. Research problems and aims

Based on the information present above, this dissertation aims to examine

the effectiveness of a hybrid SE-SGA model beyond a single season

experience on student-coaches’ instructional evolution and students’ learning

outcomes.

This dissertation soughs to response to the calls for more qualitative and

deeply examination of the teaching and learning process. In particular, given the

central place of the student-coach within SE, and given the scarcity of research

regarding student-coaches, these student intents to examine the effectiveness

of specific training protocols on student-coaches’ instructional effectiveness.

That is, we aimed to identify the instructional difficulties encountered by student-

coaches during peer-assisted tasks and then analyse the interventions that

were put in place across three SE seasons designed to address those

difficulties. This analysis might provide a realistic portrait of the teaching and

learning process and, consequently, guide future model-based research and

practical implementation.

In addition to this qualitative examination, the present study also purposes

to analyse students’ game play volleyball improvements. In fact, literature have

been enhanced some gaps of SE research regarding students’ learning that

warrants further investigation, such is the case of longitudinal data collection

(Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). A subsequent goal of the

present dissertation was to analyse this improvements according to students’

sex and skill-level.

Given all of this, the present study specifically intents to:

Introduction

17

1) To examine the effectiveness of specific student-coach instructional

preparation protocols and subsequent student-coaches instructional

effectiveness across three hybrid SE-SGA seasons. More specifically, the

goal was to identify the difficulties that student-coaches encountered during

peer-assisted tasks and then evaluate protocols designed to solve those

difficulties.

2) To examine the assertion that a hybrid combination of SE and SGA can

promote students’ learning in non-invasion games, such is the case of

volleyball. Specifically, students’ overall game play performance, decision-

making, adjust, skill efficiency and skill efficacy;

3) To analyse students’ game play performance improvements throughout

the application of three hybrid volleyball SE-SGA units throughout three

years;

4) To determine the extent to which gains in students’ performance levels

might vary according to sex and skill-level.

1.3. Structure of the dissertation

The present dissertation was elaborated in conformity with the

requirements and guidelines of the Faculty of Sports of the University of Porto

(FADEUP, 2009). This dissertations is structured according to the Scandinavian

model, notably by scientific papers to be submitted to international peer-

reviewed journals. The rational for this option relies on the grounds that

enhances the acquisition and progressive development of specific skills, not

only related to the area under investigation, but also to scientific production.

Therefore, four distinctive chapters compose this thesis.

Chapter I assigns the introduction of the dissertation, in which both the

theoretical framework and the relevance of the theme considering the research

already done in the field. In addition, the general purpose of the thesis and its

structure are also exposed within this chapter.

Introduction

18

The following chapter is dedicated to the theoretical component of the

dissertation. Specifically, the chapter II presents the review article entitled

Review of the Status of Learning in Research on Sport Education: Future

Research and Practice. This review article sough to gather what is know to date

with respect to students’ learning when participating in SE seasons and provide

possible directions that future research and practical implementations of the

model might follow. This article was crucial to provide a sustained theoretical

framework to the subsequent empirical articles wrote to this thesis.

Chapter III comprehends the empirical component of the present

dissertation and is composed by three empirical articles published or submitted

to international peer-review journals with impact factor. The first empirical study

is entitled “Students’ Game Performance Improvements during a Hybrid Sport

Education–Step-Game-Approach Volleyball Unit” and intended to analyse a

hybrid combination of SE and the SGA model on students’ game performance

according their sex and skill-level. In particular, decision-making, adjustment,

skill execution, skill efficacy, game involvement and overall game performance.

Seventeen seventh-grade students participated in a 25-lesson volleyball

season. This study was crucial not only to analyse students’ volleyball

improvements on all the dimensions of the game play but also to the diagnosis

of possible issues to be improved for the two following seasons and,

consequently, the two following empirical articles.

The second empirical article is entitled “The instructional evolution of the

student-coach in a combined use of Sport Education and Step-Game-

Approach” deeply examines the dynamics of teaching learning process that

operates within the Sport Education season, in particular the student-coaches

instructional skills during peer-assisted tasks. In addition, not only this study

sough to identify possible student-coaches’ instructional difficulties, but also to

evaluate the impact of specific formats to the preparation of this students. In this

way, the instructional performance of three coaches was observed throughout

the three years.

Introduction

19

The third empirical article entitled “The long-term development of volleyball

competence using Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach model” which

analysed students’ overall game play improvements throughout three hybrid

Sport Education- SGA seasons, also taking into account students’ sex and skill

level. This study followed a longitudinal design and 18 students were analysed

when they were in the seventh-grade until their ninth-grade. This study has

shown to be a major contribution to the Sport Education research since it was

the first to respond to the calls for more longitudinal data collection protocols.

The chapter IV is dedicated to the final thoughts, supported by the

conclusions of each of the empirical article that incorporate the present

dissertation. In this chapter the findings from the different studies were

interpreted, related and summarized in order to fill the gaps from previous

research and provide a richer understanding of students’ improvements and the

dynamics of the teaching and learning process operating within the peer-

assisted tasks of the model. In addition, in this chapter suggestions that future

research might follow and insights for future SE and SGA implementations are

also presented.

The references of each chapter are presented in the end of it. Additionally,

the references of each article are presented in the end of that same article

according to the journals’ guidelines. Table 1 provides a complete outline of the

structure of the thesis.

Introduction

20

Table 1. Structure of the dissertation Chapter I Introduction

Introduction of the dissertation, which comprehends the theoretical framework and the relevance of the theme under study, the general purpose of the thesis, and its structure

Chapter II Review Article

Review Article

Review of the Status of Learning in Research on Sport Education: Future Research and Practice Rui Araújo, Isabel Mesquita and Peter A. Hastie Published: Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2014) 13(4), 846-858 (Impact Factor: 1.025).

Chapter III Empirical Studies

Empirical Article 1

Students’ game performance improvements during a hybrid sport education–step-game-approach volleyball unit Rui Araújo, Isabel Mesquita, Peter A. Hastie and Cristiana Pereira In press: European Physical Education Review (2015) doi: 10.1177/1356336x15597927 (Impact Factor: 0.673).

Empirical Article 2

The instructional evolution of the student-coach in a combined use of Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach Rui Araújo, Isabel Mesquita, Peter A. Hastie and Cristiana Bessa Submitted to: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education (Impact Factor: 0.740)

Empirical Article 3

The long-term development of volleyball competence using Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach model Rui Araújo, Isabel Mesquita, Peter A. Hastie, Keith Lohse, Cristiana Bessa Submitted: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy (Impact Factor: 0.811).

Chapter IV

Final Thoughts

Introduction

21

1.4. References

Alexander, K., & Luckman, J. (2001). Australian teachers’ perceptions and uses

of the sport education curriculum model. European Physical Education

Review, 7(3), 243-267.

Belka, D. E. (2004). Combining and Sequencing Games Skills. Journal of

Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 75(4), 23-27.

Brock, S. J., Rovegno, I., & Oliver, K. L. (2009). The influence of student status

on student interactions and experiences during a sport education unit.

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 14(4), 355-375.

Brunton, J. (2003). Changing hierarchies of power in physical education using

sport education. European Physical Education Review, 9(3), 267-284.

Bunker, D., & Thorpe, R. (1982). A Model for the Teaching of Games in

Secondary Schools. Bulletin of Physical Education, 18(1), 5-8.

Carlson, T., & Hastie, P. A. (1997). The Student Social System Within Sport

Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(2), 176-195.

Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant?


Corden, R. (2000). Literacy and learning through talk. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Coulter, M., & Chróinín, D. N. (2013). What is PE? Sport, Education and

Society, 18(6), 825-841.

Dyson, B. (2001). Cooperative Learning in an Elementary Physical Education

Program. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 20(3), 264-281.

Dyson, B., Griffin, L., & Hastie, P. A. (2004). Sport Education, Tactical Games,

and Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations.

Quest, 56(2), 226-240.

Ennis, C. (2014). What goes around comes around ... or does it? Disrupting the

cycle of traditional, sport-based physical education. Kinesiology Review,

3(1), 63-70.

Introduction

22

Entwistle, N., & Entwistle, A. (1991). Contrasting forms of understanding for

degree examinations: the student experience and its implications. Higher

Education, 22(3), 205-227.

FADEUP. (2009). Normas e orientações para a redação e apresentação de

dissertações e relatórios. Porto: FADEUP.

Flintoff, A., & Scraton, S. (2001). Stepping into active leisure? Young women’s

perceptions of active lifestyles and their experiences of school physical

education. Sport, Education and Society, 6(1), 5-21.

Frosnot, C. T. (1998). Construtivismo: Teoria, Perspectivas e Prática

Pedagógica. Porto Alegre: ARTMED.

Gerdin, G., & Pringle, R. (in press). The politics of pleasure: an ethnographic

examination exploring the dominance of the multi-activity sport-based

physical education model. Sport, Education and Society. doi:

10.1080/13573322.2015.1019448.

Graça, A., & Mesquita, I. (2003). Physical Education Teachers' Conceptions

About Teaching TGfU in Portuguese Schools. In J. Butler, L. Griffin, B.

Lombardo & R. Nastasi (Eds.), Teaching Games for Understanding in

Physical Education and Sport (pp. 87-97). United States of America:

National Association for Sport and Physical Education.

Green, K. (1998). Philosophies, ideologies and the practice of physical

education. Sport, Education & Society, 3(2), 125-143.

Green, K. (2008). Understanding physical education. London: Sage.

Gréhaigne, J.-F., Wallian, N., & Godbout, P. (2005). Tactical-decision learning

model and students' practices. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy,

10(3), 255-269.

Griffin, L., Mitchell, S., & Oslin, J. (1997). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A

tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinectics.

Haerens, L., Kirk, D., Cardon, G., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2011). Toward the

Development of a Pedagogical Model for Health-Based Physical

Education. Quest, 63(3), 321-338.

Introduction

23

Harvey, S., & Jarret, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to

teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and

Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278-300.

Hastie, P. A. (1998a). The Participation and Perceptions of Girls Within a Unit of

Sport Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(2), 157-

171.

Hastie, P. A. (1998b). Skill and tactical development during a sport education

season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(4), 368-379.

Hastie, P. A. (2000). An Ecological Analysis of a Sport Education Season.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19(3), 355-373.

Hastie, P. A. (2012). The nature and purpose of Sport Education as an

educational experience. In P. Hastie (Ed.), Sport Education: international

perspectives (Routledge Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport

(pp. 1-12). USA: Routledge.

Hastie, P. A., Calderón, A., Rolim, R., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). The

Development of Skill and Knowledge During a Sport Education Season

of Track and Field Athletics. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,

84(3), 336-344.

Hastie, P. A., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid Sport

Education - Teaching Games for Understanding unit on one teacher and

his students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 1-27.

Hastie, P. A., Martinez de Ojeda, D., & Calderón, A. (2011). A Review of

Research on Sport Education: 2004 to the Present. Physical Education

and Sport Pedagogy, 16(2), 103-132.

Hastie, P. A., Sinelnikov, O., & Guarino, A. J. (2009). The development of skill

and tactical competencies during a season of badminton. European

Journal of Sport Science, 9(3), 133-140.

Hellison, D. (2011). Teaching responsability through physical activity (3 ed.).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinectics.

Jewett, A., & Bain, L. (1985). The curriculum process in physical education.

Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.

Introduction

24

Kinchin, G. (2006). Sport education: a view of the research. In D. Kirk, D.

Macdonald & M. O'Sullivan (Eds.), The Handbook of Physical Education

(pp. 596-609). London: Sage.

Kirk, D. (1999). Physical culture, physical education and relational analysis.

Sport, Education and Society, 4(1), 63-73.

Kirk, D. (2010). Physical Education Futures. Oxon: Routledge.

Kirk, D. (2013). Educational Value and Models-Based Practice in Physical

Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(9), 973-986.

Kretchmar, S. (2008). The increasing utility of elementary school physical

education: a mixed blessing and unique challenge. The Elementary

School Journal, 108(3), 161-170.

Lake, J. (2001). oung people’s conceptions of sport, physical education and

exercise: implications for physical education and the promotion of

health-related exercise. European Physical Education Review, 7(1), 80-

91.

Launder, A. (2001). Play Practice: The Games Approach to Teaching and

Coaching Sports. Champaign: Human Kinectics.

Light, R. (2013). Game Sense: Pedagogy for Performance Participation and

Enjoyment. Oxen Abingdon: Routledge.

Locke, L. F. (1992). Changing secondary school physical education. Quest,

44(3), 361-372.

Mesquita, I. (2012). Fundar o lugar do Desporto na escola através do Modelo

de Educação Desportiva. In I. Mesquita & J. Bento (Eds.), Professor de

Educação Física: Fundar e dignificar a profissão. Belo Horizonte: Casa

da Educação Física.

Mesquita, I. (2013). Perspectiva construtivista da aprendizagem no ensino do

jogo. In J. V. d. Nascimento, V. Ramos & F. Tavares (Eds.), Jogos

Desportivos: Formação e Investigação (Vol. 4, pp. 103-132).

Florianópolis: UDESC.

Mesquita, I., Farias, C., & Hastie, P. A. (2012). The impact of a hybrid Sport

Education-Invasion Games Competence Model soccer unit on students'

Introduction

25

decision making, skill execution and overall game performance.

European Physical Education Review, 18(2), 205-219.

Mesquita, I., Graça, A., Gomes, A. R., & Cruz, C. (2005). Examining the Impact

of a Step Game Approach to Teaching Volleyball on Student Tactical

Decision Making and Skill Execution During Game Play. Journal of

Human Movement Studies, 48(6), 469-492.

Metzler, M. W. (2011). Instructional Models for Physical Education (3 ed.).

Scottsdale, Arizona: Holcomb Hathaway, Publishers, Inc.

Mitchell, S., Oslin, J., & Griffin, L. (2003). Sport foundations for elementary

physical education: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Mitchell, S., Oslin, J., & Griffin, L. (2006). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A

tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Morgan, K. (2007). Pedagogy for coaches. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), An introduction

to sports coaching: From science and theory to practice (pp. 3-14).

London: Routledge.

Ozoliņš, J. T., & Stolz, S. A. (2013). The Place of Physical Education and Sport

in Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 45(9), 887-891.

Penney, D. (1998). Positioning and defining physical education, sport and

health in the curriculum. European Physical Education Review, 4(2), 117-

126.

Penney, D., & Evans, J. (1999). Politics, policy and practice in physical

education. London: E&FN Spon, Routledge.

Pereira, F., Graça, A., Blomqvist, M., & Mesquita, I. (2011). Instructional

approaches in youth volleyball training settings according to player's age

and gender. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 42(3), 227-244.

Pereira, J., Hastie, P. A., Araújo, R., Farias, C., Rolim, R., & Mesquita, I. (2015).

A Comparative Study of Students’ Track and Field Technical

Performance in Sport Education and in a Direct Instruction Approach.

Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 14(1), 118-127.

Pill, S., Penney, D., & Swabey, K. (2012). Rethinking Sport Teaching in

Physical Education: A Case Study of Research Based Innovation In

Introduction

26

Teacher Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 37(8), 118-

138.

Placek, J. (1983). Conceptions of success in teaching: Busy, happy and good?

In T. J. Templin & K. K. Olson (Eds.), Teaching in Physical Education

(pp. 46-56). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

Pritchard, T., Hawkins, A., Wiegand, R., & Metzler, J. N. (2008). Effects of Two

Instructional Approaches on Skill Development, Knowledge, and Game

Performance. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science,

12(4), 219-236.

Pritchard, T., McCollum, S., Sundal, J., & Colquit, G. (2014). Effect of the Sport

Education Tactical Model on Coeducational and Single Gender Game

Performance. The Physical Educator, 71(1), 132-154.

Puhse, E., & Gerber, M. (Eds.). (2005). International Comparison of Physical

Education: concepts, problems, prospects. Oxford: Meyer.

Rink, J. (2001). Investigating the Assumptions of Pedagogy. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education, 20(2), 112-128.

Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time and direct instruction. In P. Peterson & H.

Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: concepts, findings and

implications. Berkeley, California: Mccutchan.

Rossi, T., Fry, J. M., McNeil, M., & Tan, C. W. K. (2006). The games concept

approach (GCA) as a mandated practice: Views of Singaporean

teachers. Sport Education and Society, 12(1), 93-111.

Siedentop, D. (1968). A curriculum theory for physical education in shcools.

Indiana: Daryl Siedentop. Doctoral Dissertation presented to the Indiana

University.

Siedentop, D. (1994). Sport Education: Quality PE through positive sport

experiences. Champaingn, IL: Human Kinetics.

Siedentop, D. (1995). Improving sport education. ACHPER Australia Healthy

Lifestyles Journal, 42(4), 22-24.

Siedentop, D. (2002). Sport Education: A Retrospective. Journal of Teaching in

Physical Education, 21(4), 409-418.

Introduction

27

Siedentop, D., Hastie, P. A., & Van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete Guide to

Sport Education (2 ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, research and practice (2

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Taggart, A. (1988). The endangered species revisited. ACHPER National

Journal, 121, 34-50.

Taylor, J., & Chiogioji, E. (1987). Implications of physical education report on

high school programs. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and

Dance, 54(8), 22-23.

Thorpe, R. (1996). Physical Education: Beyond the curriculum. In A. N. (Ed.),

New Directions in Physical Education: Change and Innovation (pp. 144-

156). London: Cassell.

Vanderstraeten, R. (2002). Dewey’s Transactional Constructivism. Journal of

Philosophy of Education, 36(2), 233-246.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A contructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe

& J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education. Hillsdale: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1998). Construtivismo: Aspectos Introdutórios. In C. T.

Frosnot (Ed.), Construtivismo: Teoria, Perspetiva e Prática Pedagógica.

Porto Alegre: ARTMED.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridgem MA: MIT Press.

Wallhead, T., & O'Sullivan, M. (2005). Sport education: Physical education for

the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(2),

181-210.

Wallhead, T., & 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(3), 225-243.

Weiner, I. B., Borman, W. C., Ilgen, D. R., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). Industrial

and organizational psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

II. Review Article

_________________________________________________

Review of the Status of Learning in Research on Spo rt Education: Future

Research and Practice

Rui Araújo 1, Isabel Mesquita 1 and Peter A. Hastie 2

1 Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, CIFI2D,

Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 2 Kinesiology, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.

Published: Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2014), 13(4), 846-858.

Review Article

31

Abstract

Research concerning Sport Education’s educational impact has shown

unequivocal results according to students’ personal and social development.

Nevertheless, research is still sparse with respect to the model’s impact on

student learning outcomes. The goal of the present review is to therefore

scrutinize what is currently known regarding students’ learning during their

participation in Sport Education. This research spans a variety of studies,

cross various countries, school grades, the sports studied, as well as the

methods applied and dimensions of student learning analyzed. While research

on the impact of Sport Education on students’ learning, as well as teachers’

and students’ perceptions about student learning has shown students’

improvements during the participation in Sport Education seasons, there is still

considerable variance in these results. For example, some studies report

superior learning opportunities to boys and higher skill-level students while

other studies have identified superior learning opportunities for girls and lower

skill-level students. These inconsistent results can be explained by factors not

considered in the Sport Education research, such as the effect of time on

students’ learning and the control of the teaching-learning process within Sport

Education units. In this review directions for future research and practice are

also described. Future research should define, implement, and evaluate

protocols for student-coaches’ preparation in order to understand the influence

of this issue on students’ learning as well as consider the implementation of

hybrid approaches. Moreover, future studies should consider the interaction of

gender and skill level and a retention test in the analysis of students’ learning

improvements in order to obtain a more realist and complete portrait of the

impact of Sport Education. Finally, in order to reach an entirely understanding

of the teaching-learning process, it is necessary to use research designs that

attend to the complexity of this process.

Key words: Assessment, gender, instructional models, physical education,

skill level, students.

Review Article

32

Introduction

As a response to the lack of authenticity and meaningfulness of a

techniques-centred approach to sport within physical education, Siedentop

(1994) developed "Sport Education". The overriding goals of this pedagogical

model are the development of competent, literate and enthusiastic

sportspersons (Siedentop et al., 2011). Reviews of research on Sport Education

(e.g., Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead and O'Sullivan, 2005) have reported varying

degrees of accomplishment of these goals, to the point now where Hastie

(2012, p. 10) suggests the following executive summary: “evidence for

competency is ‘burgeoning and developing’, support for literacy is ‘emerging’,

and that enthusiastic responses by students have been ‘significantly

substantiated”.

According to Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2005), research on Sport

Education as a pedagogical model has been framed according to two broad

categories: practical strategies required to implement Sport Education

(pedagogical strategies, assessment, model application to different areas, etc.)

and the educational impact of this model on various dimensions of student

learning. With respect to the second of these (Sport Education’s educational

impact), research findings have suggested consistent results according to

students’ personal and social development, namely their attitudes (enthusiasm,

motivation, etc.) and values (affinity, equity, etc.) (Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead

and O'Sullivan, 2005). These findings are reflected by teachers’ (Alexander et

al., 1996; Strickwerda-Brown and Taggart, 2001) and students’ (Bennett and

Hastie, 1997) perceptions as well as empirical measurement (Hastie, 1998b).

Nonetheless, research is still sparse with respect to the model’s impact on

student learning outcomes (Hastie et al., 2011). This issue is particularly

important given that learning is one of the central goals of education, which

means that the substantive value of the motor task cannot be underestimated at

the expense of group activities and social interaction. The personal and social

domain cannot therefore become an end in itself, and it is through the motor

task, the pursuit of competence and performance that physical education

Review Article

33

becomes meaningful (Mesquita, 2012). Therefore, the purpose of the present

study is to scrutinize what is currently known concerning students’ learning

when participating in Sport Education in order to make judgments and directions

that future research and practice might follow.

Methods

Systematic search and study selection

A systematic literature search was conducted using seven databases,

namely Academic Search Complete, ERIC, SPORTDiscus with Full Text,

PsychInfo, Education Research Complete, ISI Web of Knowledge and

SCOPUS. This search was conducted from their inception to September 20,

2013 using the “Sport Education” as the keyword, and performed by two

researchers with experience in this methodology and knowledgeable of

instructional models in physical education.

Using these, studies for this review were included according to the

following criteria: (i) were published in peer reviewed international journals; (ii)

included at least one group participating in a Sport Education season; and (iii)

focused on student’s learning outcomes (skill development, knowledge, tactical

awareness and game play). Review and opinion articles, articles focusing on

personal/ social outcomes, and articles focused on the discussion of the

practical strategies required to implement Sport Education (pedagogical

strategies, assessment, etc.) were excluded from this review.

Figure 1 presents the summary of decisions taken for identifying studies.

Initially, from the wide range of articles that identified “Sport Education” in

either the title, abstract or keywords (n = 36,954), only those related to Sport

Education research were selected for reading (n = 276). From this number,

only peer-reviewed articles related to students’ learning outcomes (skill

development, knowledge improvement tactical development and game play)

were selected (n = 34). Review articles (n = 2) and articles without full text (n =

9) were excluded for this review. Therefore, only peer review journal articles

Review Article

34

that specifically studied students’ improvements according to skill development,

tactical development or game

play were included to the present review (n = 23).

In order to analyse all the information from the 23 articles included in this

review, content analysis was performed. The following categories were defined

a priori using the method suggested by Harris et al. (2013): purpose, type of

study, dimension of learning analysed, participants/setting, data

collect/analysis, and principal results.

Assessment of study quality

The 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality.

These criteria were adapted from the Strengthening the Reporting of

Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations

(Vandenbrouck et al., 2007) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting

Full-text articles reviewed (n=276)

Articles specifically focused on students’ learning outcomes (n=34)

Full-text articles included in review (n=23)

Articles excluded (n=11): • Review articles (n=2)

• Articles without full-text (n=9)

Publications identified through database searching (n=3695): • Academic Search Complete - 609

• ERIC - 326

• SPORTDiscus with Full Text - 1412

• PsychInfo - 293

• Education Research Complete - 635

• ISI Web of Knowledge - 177

• SCOPUS - 243

Publications excluded (n=242): • Not peer review articles

• Do not specifically focused on

students’ learning outcomes

Publications excluded, with reasons (n=3419): • Duplicates

• Not Sport Education articles

Figure 1 - Decision flowchart for identified studies

Review Article

35

Trials (CONSORT) statement (Moher et al., 2001). A formal quality score for

each study was completed on a six-point scale by assessing a value of 0 (no

present or inadequately described) or 1 (present and explicitly described) to

each of the following questions: (a) Did the article provide a detailed

description of the program context: teacher expertise and students previous

experience? (b) Did the study report sources and details of outcome

assessment? (c) Did outcome assessment instruments have acceptable

reliability for the specific age group? (d) Did the study report the precise details

of the interventions intended for each group and how and when they were

actually administered? (e) Did the study report the fidelity of the intervention

that was delivered to participants and was the delivered content in the true

nature of the intended intervention? (f) Did the study report the effect size of

primary and secondary outcome investigation? Studies scored from 0-2 were

classified as “low” quality studies, from 3-4 as “moderate” quality studies, and

those that scored 5-6 were classified as “high” quality studies. This assessment

was performed by one of the authors of the present article as well as an

external reader who had significant research in instructional models in physical

education, particularly Sport Education. In order to measure the degree of

reliability of the two assessments, the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. This

test showed a higher agreement between the two assessments (α = 0.99). The

assessment of studies’ quality is presented in Table 1.

Review Article

36

Table 1. Study quality checklist with quality scores assigned

Authors/Date Que 1

Que 2

Que 3

Que 4

Que 5

Que 6

Quality score total/6

Grant (1992) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Carlson (1995) 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Curnow & MacDonald (1995) 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

Alexander et al. (1996) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carlson & Hastie (1997) 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Hastie (1998a) 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 Hastie (1998b) 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Alexander & Luckman (2001)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hastie & Trost (2002) 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 Clarke & Quill (2003) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Browne et al. (2004) 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 Hastie & Curtner-Smith (2006)

1 0 0 1 0 0 2

Hastie & Sinelnikov (2006) 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Cruz (2008) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pritchard et al. (2008) 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Brock et al. (2009) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Li & Cruz (2009) 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hastie, Sinelnikov & Guarino (2009)

1 1 1 1 1 0 5

Calderón, Hastie & Martinez (2010)

1 0 0 1 1 0 3

Mesquita, Farias & Hastie (2012)

1 1 1 1 0 0 4

Cho et al. (2012) 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Gutiérrez et al. (2013) 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 Hastie et al. (2013) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Question (Que). Que 1: Did the article provide a detailed description of the program context: teacher expertise and students previous experience? Que 2: Did the study report the sources and details of outcome assessment? Que 3: Did outcome assessment instruments have acceptable reliability for the specific age group? Que 4: Did the study report the precise details of the interventions intended for each group and how and when they were actually administered? Que 5: Did the study report the precise fidelity of the intervention that was delivered to participants and was the delivered content in the true nature of the intended intervention? Que 6: Did the study report the effect size of primary and secondary outcome investigation?

Review Article

37

Results

Table 2 show the 23 articles that were included in this review. The

assessment of the study’s quality is included in the table.

Review Article

38

Table 2. Overview of the studies included in this review

Authors/Date Purpose Type of

study Dimension analysed

Participant/Setting

Data collect/analys

is Result Quality

score

Hastie et al. (2013)

Evaluate the extent to which two instructional units in physical education would lead to improvement in students’ skill and technical performance and knowledge

Quantitative assessment

Skill and tactical development Performance

Portugal 119 students (56 SE and 63 DI) 10th grade Equivalent of 20 track and filed lessons (45 min)

Skill and knowledge tests Performance measures Independent-samples t test

Despite improvements for both tests were found, SE education was more effective for shot put and hurdles. No improvements for knowledge in the traditional unit, while SE students improved their scores by more than 7%. Improvements in performance were found both units, but favouring SE.

6

Hastie (1998b)

Examine the development of skill competence and tactical awareness and student’s perceptions and experiences during a SE unit

Both qualitative and quantitative assessment

Skill and tactical development Game play

USA 6 students (4 boys and 2 girls) 6th grade 30 lesson (35 min) of Ultimate Frisbee.

Videotape observation Student interviews

Boys had more opportunities of participation. Girls did not considered these iniquities as problematic since continued to fell a useful part of the team. Skill development was more evident to low skill-level students, whilst tactical development to higher skill students.

5

Review Article

39

Hastie & Sinelnikov (2006)

Analysed participation and perceptions of students in a SE unit


Skill development

Russia 37 students (18 boys and 19 girls) 6th grade 18 Basketball lessons

Videotape Interviews ANOVA Analytic induction of themes

Results showed differences according to skill level, favouring higher skill students although both groups presented above 70%.

5

Pritchard et al. (2008)

Comparison between two instructional models (SE and DI) on skill development, knowledge and game performance



USA 47 students 9th grade 20 Volleyball lessons (50 min)

Skill tests Knowledge tests GPAI MANOVA

Students’ improvements in skill execution, tactical knowledge and performance. Higher improvements for SE students according to performance.

5

Hastie, Sinelnikov & Guarino (2009)

Examined the development of skill and competence and tactical knowledge during a SE unit


Skill and tactical development

Russia 41 students 8th grade 18 Badminton lessons (45 min)

Skill test GPAI Knowledge test ANOVA

Results showed improvements in skill development, performance and tactical knowledge for both boys and girls. However only according to knowledge boys didn’t show higher improvements

5

Review Article

40

Cho et al. (2012)

Investigate students’ motor skill development through a SE season


Skill development

USA 130 students: 66 sixth (35 boys and 31 girls) and 64 seventh (32 boys, 32 girls) grade students 21 (middle school classes) and 15 (junior high school classes) Volleyball lessons (45 min)

Protocol for skill assessment (SCPEAP) Repeated measures ANOVA

Student volleyball form, communication, movement to ball, and effective play significantly improved throughout the season.

5

Hastie (1998a)

Studied the participation and perceptions of a cohort of girls during a SE unit


Students’ learning in general

USA 35 girls 5th and 6th grade 20 Floor Hockey lessons

Videotape observations of opportunities to responds Group interviews Quantitative: descriptive and ANOVA across gender Qualitative: inductive analysis

Despite results showed improvement for both sexes, boys had more opportunities to take positions of power, higher success levels and more opportunities to respond during competition phase. Nevertheless girls continued to prefer SE

4

Review Article

41

Hastie & Trost (2002)

Student physical activity levels and skill development during a SE unit


Skill development

19 male students Middle school 22 lessons Hockey (50 min)

Accelerometers (MVA & VPA) Skill tests

Improvements for both higher and lower skill-level students

4

Mesquita, Farias & Hastie (2012)

Analyse the impact of a hybrid SE-IGCM model on students’ skill and tactical development and performance



Portugal 26 students 5th grade 22 soccer lessons

Knowledge test Game performance through GPAI Mann-Whitney e Wilcoxon

Student’s improved their skill execution and tactical decisions, not only defensive but also offensive, especially for girls and low skill-level students.

4

Browne et al. (2004)

Comparison between SE and DI concerning students’ learning, enthusiasm and affection



Australia53 boys 2 8th grade classes20 Rugby lessons (45 min)

Assessment of skills by teacher and students’ self-evaluation Interviews with students

SE students showed higher results concerning perceived learning and refer a better understanding of the game.

3

Calderón, Hastie & Martinez (2010)

Teacher’s and students’ perceptions about SE implementation in Spain

Qualitative assessment


48 students 1 teacher 8 “Balón Prisionero” lessons

Teacher’s diary Teacher interviews Student questionnaires Student drawings

Teacher’s reported students’ improvements, particularly technical and knowledge. Higher students’ perceived competence in the end of the unit when compared to the beginning

3

Review Article

42

Gutiérrez et al. (2013)

Expand the understanding of Spanish students’ perceptions of SE


Spain 270 students from nine different schools 5th to 11th grade

Student’s surveys Small-group interviews ANOVA Inductive analytic methods

Students referred that they had more time to practice and play more games. By consequence, they referred more learning opportunities. Higher levels of perceived improvement in girls.

3

Carlson (1995)

Perceptions and experiences of female students to SE



Australia 8 female students 9th grade 20 Flag football lessons

Teacher interview Student interviews Constant comparison of themes Frequencies of touches of ball

Female students improved during the season and the length of the unit was perceived as a key element to these results

2

Curnow & MacDonald (1995)

Analysis of gender iniquities on SE units


Skill development

Australia 25 students (12 boys and 13 girls) 6th and 7th grade 9 Touch Rugby lessons (45 min)

Student interviews Videotape observations Teacher diary Qualitative constant comparison of themes

More learning opportunities and powerful roles to boys

2

Review Article

43

Carlson & Hastie (1997)

Analysis of social system within a SE unit


Skill development

Australia 88 students 8th and 9th grade 21 Netball and Football lessons (45 min)

Field notes Lesson videotape Student and teachers interviews Qualitative constant comparison of themes

Lower skill-level participants were more likely to mentioned increased physical skills.

2

Hastie & Curtner-Smith (2006)

Analyse teachers’ and students’ perceptions in a hybrid SE-TGfU unit



Australia 29 students (11 boys and 18 girls) 6th grade 22 batting and fielding games lessons (50 min)

Critical incidents Tactical quizzes Game design forms Team interviews

All students were able to understand, appreciate and implement rudimentary tactics.

2

Grant (1992)

Teachers’ perceptions about students’ learning



New Zealand 86 teachers 10th grade 34 schools 14 sports 16-22 lessons

Teacher reflective diaries Thematic Analysis

Improvements in student decision-making and enthusiasm

1

Review Article

44

Cruz (2008)

Analyse the views of students and teachers from their learning and teaching experiences



Hong Kong 2 teachers 110 students Secondary school

Participant observation Filed notes Teacher reflective journal Questionnaires to students Semi-structured interviews with teachers

Teachers believed that SE would benefit students’ learning outcomes.

1

Brock et al. (2009)

Explore student’s social interactions and their perspectives during a SE unit: influence of student status on group interactions and decisions



USA 10 students (5 boys and 5 girls) Elementary school 26 lessons of modified soccer

Student questionnaires Videotape and observations Informal interviews with teachers Student journals Field notes

Student’s status appeared to have an influence on whose opinions counted and whose voices were heard and the decision-making process of the team captains. Low status students were silenced and those voices were no heard. The status characteristics of gender influenced the amount of playing time students received during the unit

1

Review Article

45

Li & Cruz (2009)

Analysed teachers’ and students’ experiences on SE


Skill development

Hong Kong 2 teachers 12 students 2 Basketball and Handball units

Lesson videotaping Semi-structured interviews Content analysis and constant comparison

One of the teachers referred improvements in handball skills.

1

Alexander et al. (1996)

Report of the Australian national trial of SE: program change, educational impact, inclusivity


Skill development

Australia 53 teachers

Teachers questionnaires Videoconference with teachers Student diary Deductive analysis of themes

Improvements in skill development, especially for lower skilled students.

0

Alexander & Luckman (2001)

Teacher’s perceptions about SE implementation


Skill development

Australia 337 teachers

Teachers’ questionnaires

Skill development it is difficult to achieve. When it occur favours low skill students

0

Clarke & Quill (2003)

Analysis on the ways in which SE might enhanced students’ leanings


Skill development

United Kingdom 8th grade 6 lessons

Interviews Field notes Teacher diaries

Teachers show some scepticism according to student’s learning outcomes during SE units.

0

Review Article

46

Source, grade and sport

Sport Education research considering students’ learning outcomes is

particularly diverse, spanning a variety of countries, the school grade in which

the season was applied, and the sports studied. According to the country

where the Sport Education season took place, the most frequent country was

Australia (n = 7), followed by USA (n = 5), Russia (n = 2), Portugal (n = 2),

Hong Kong (n = 2), Spain (n = 2), United Kingdom (n = 1) and New Zealand (n

= 1). With regard to the grade level used, the most frequent were those most

associated with middle school (sixth through eighth grade; n = 14), followed by

high school (ninth through twelfth grade; n=7) and finally elementary school

(first to fifth grade; n = 4). Team sports were the most commonly studied (n =

19), whereas only four studies incorporated individual sports (such as athletics,

badminton) or dance in their seasons.

Methods applied

This research spans two distinctive methodological approaches:

qualitative studies (students’ and teachers’ perceptions) or quantitative studies

(quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest design). From Table 1 it can be seen that

qualitative research has focused on three concerns: teachers’ perceptions,

students’ perceptions, and studies that have examined both teachers and

students. Four studies focused on the perceptions of teachers concerning

students’ learning (Alexander and Luckman, 2001; Carlson and Hastie, 1997;

Curnow and McDonald, 1995; Grant, 1992). Several authors (n = 6) examined

both students’ and teachers’ perceptions (Alexander et al., 1996; Calderón et

al., 2010; Carlson, 1995; Clarke and Quill, 2003; Cruz, 2008; Li and Cruz,

2009;) and only one study has analysed students’ perceptions (Gutiérrez et al.,

2013). In these studies, several tools were used to examine the perceptions of

the participants such as formal and informal interviews (n = 11), reflective

diaries (n = 7), questionnaires (n = 3), drawings (n = 1), and group interviews (n

= 1).

In studies following qualitative measures, quasi-experimental pre-posttest

designs (Cho et al., 2012; Hastie and Trost, 2002; Hastie et al., 2009; 2013;

Review Article

47

Mesquita et al., 2012; Pritchard et al., 2008) have been used in order to

analyse the impact of Sport Education on students’ learning outcomes. The

most frequently used instruments in these designs were skill tests (n = 6),

followed by tactical knowledge tests (n = 4) and systematic observation

instruments to evaluate students’ improvements (n = 3), such as the Game

Performance Analysis Instrument (Oslin et al., 1998).

Mixed methods (incorporating both quantitative and qualitative

assessment) were also used (Brock et al., 2009; Browne et al., 2004; Hastie,

1998a; 1998b; Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006; Hastie and Sinelnikov, 2006).

The majority of these studies used both lesson videotapes and interviews (n =

4). Field notes (n = 1), questionnaires (n = 1), self-evaluation of skills (n = 1),

critical incidents (n = 1), game design forms (n = 1) and tactical quizzes (n = 1)

were also used. In these mixed methods studies both students’ learning

(through empirical measurement) and students’/ teachers’ perceptions (through

more qualitative measures) were examined.

Dimensions of students’ learning

Related to the dimensions of students’ learning analysed, Sport Education

research have been focused on skill development, tactical development and

game play. Only five studies analysed all these dimensions of students’

learning (Hastie, 1998b; 2009; 2013; Mesquita et al., 2012; Pritchard et al.,

2008). Beyond that, skill development was the most studied dimension of

students’ learning (n = 15), followed by tactical development (n = 5). Six

studies reported learning outcomes, in general, that is without specifying which

dimension was analysed.

Impact of Sport Education on student’s learning

Research concerning the impact of Sport Education on students’ learning

as well as teachers’ and students’ perceptions about students’ learning has

considered students’ skill-level and gender. Although research has showed

students’ improvements during the participation in Sport Education seasons,

the outcomes remain somewhat ambiguous since some studies report superior

Review Article

48

learning outcomes for boys and higher skill-level students while other studies

found superior learning outcomes for girls and lower skill-level students.

Students’ learning according to gender

Gender inequity has been the focus of several investigations in physical

education (e.g. Ennis, 1999; Flintoff, 2008; Nicaise et al., 2007; Williams and

Bedward, 2010), where the theme of dominance of boys and higher skill-level

students consistently arises (Flintoff et al., 2008; Shimon, 2005; Solmon et al.,

2003; Williams et al., 2000). Within Sport Education, there is a focus on

inclusion and equal participation, seeking to develop student cooperation and

sharing responsibility through the use of persisting teams and seasonal

responsibilities taken by all students (Siedentop, 1994). However, some

authors (n=5) have reported greater learning opportunities for boys during

Sport Education units (Brock et al., 2009; Curnow and McDonald, 1995; Hastie,

1998a; 1998b; 2009).

More specifically, Curnow and McDonald (1995) report a case study of an

upper primary Sport Education unit in order to analyse gender inclusivity.

Through the use of student’s interviews, videotape observations and teacher

diaries, the authors concluded that boys held more powerful roles, dominated

interactions and girls were silenced. Student’s freedom led to limitations on skill

development, particularly amongst girls. Nevertheless, it is necessary to take

into account that in this study the participation of students was not regulated

and the season was short (9 lessons) considering the minimum limit of 20

lessons referred by Siedentop (1994). According to Curnow and McDonald

(1995) equity principles could be achieved from closer teacher guidance or

rules to giving students equal “access to power”, for instance through the

rotation of all students across the allocated roles. Brock et al. (2009) explored

the influence of student status on group interactions and decisions in a 26-

lessons season and found that the gender influenced the amount of playing

time that students received during the unit, mostly in favour of boys. These

greater opportunities for boys led to a different impact of the Sport Education

unit on skill competence and tactical knowledge. Focusing on skill competence

Review Article

49

and tactical knowledge during an 18-lesson Sport Education season, Hastie et

al. (2009) found improvements in skill development, performance and tactical

knowledge for both genders. Nevertheless, boys showed greater gains.

Researchers have become aware of these iniquities and have tried to

develop wider and more adjustable curricula for both boys and girls, combining

the use of Sport Education with other models that define effectively the learning

tasks according to the content to be taught, i.e. hybrid models (Hastie and

Curtner-Smith, 2006). This hybrid technique was evident in the Mesquita et al.

(2012) study that analysed the impact of a 22-lessons Sport Education -

Invasion Games Competence unit on students’ skill and tactical development

and game performance. The results of this study reported students’

improvements in skill execution and tactical decisions (both defensive and

offensive) for both boys and girls but particularly for girls. These results were

explained by the closer monitoring and scaffolding from the teacher and the

use of game forms present in the hybrid unit, as well as the boys’ high entry

performance, which promoted a ceiling effect (Mesquita et al., 2012).

Students’ learning outcomes according to skill level

Students’ skill level has been a variable that differentiates the impact of

Sport Education on students’ learning outcomes. From anecdotal data, two

studies reported perceptions of higher learning opportunities to higher skill-

level students (Alexander and Luckman, 2001; Alexander et al., 1996), which

have been corroborated by studies using quantitative measures (n = 3; Brock

et al., 2009; Hastie, 1998b; Hastie and Sinelnikov, 2006). Other studies (n = 2)

have reported higher learning opportunities for lower skill-level students

(Carlson and Hastie, 1997; Mesquita et al., 2012).

In particular, Alexander et al. (1996) and Alexander and Luckman (2001)

analysed teachers’ perceptions (n = 53 and n = 377 respectively) about

students’ learning during Sport Education. Teachers suggested that higher

learning opportunities were afforded to higher skilled students, a belief that has

been substantiated by the study of Brock et al. (2009) who through systematic

observation of lessons showed that lower skill-level students were silenced and

Review Article

50

their voices were rarely heard. The results obtained by Hastie and Sinelnikov

(2006), who analysed the participation and perceptions of students during the

participation in a Sport Education season lasting 18 lessons, found similar

outcomes. Despite both groups reporting participation levels above 70%,

results favoured higher skill-level students. These greater learning

opportunities for higher skill-level students led to a differentiating effect of Sport

Education according to skill level. Hastie (1998b) focused on the analysis of

student’s learning outcomes found that lower skill-level students only had

opportunities to technical development whilst higher skill-level students had

more opportunities for tactical development. In a study of Ultimate Frisbee,

Hastie (1998b) focused on the analysis of student’s learning outcomes found

that lower skill-level students only had opportunities to technical development

while higher skill-level students had more opportunities for tactical

development. As Hastie (1998b) reported, while the lower and medium-skilled

players in particularly showed improvements in controlling the disk and being

able to throw accurate passes, it was only the medium and higher skilled

players who made improvements in passing decision making.

In a different line of results, through the application of a hybrid model,

Mesquita et al. (2012) found that lower skill-level students had lower values

when compared to middle and higher skill-level students at the beginning of the

unit. However, these differences faded at the end of the unit and therefore the

authors suggested that lower skill-level students benefited most from the unit.

These conclusions support the findings of previous investigations (Carlson and

Hastie, 1997) in which improvements were also substantial for lower skill-level

students.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to report what is currently known about students’

learning when participating in Sport Education units in order to make

judgements as to the directions that future research and practice might follow.

The actual attainment of inclusivity in Sport Education may not always match

Review Article

51

the stated goals of the model (Kinchin et al., 2001). Parker and Curtner-Smith

(2012b) support these claims as they confirmed the prevalence of hegemonic

masculinity, masculine bias and sexism within Sport Education. From Sport

Education research according to students’ learning outcomes a differentiating

effect of students’ gender and skill-level was found. Teachers and students

reported superior learning opportunities for boys and higher skill-level students

due to the apparent dominance of these students in the social and instructional

agenda (Alexander and Luckman, 2001; Alexander et al., 1996; Curnow and

McDonald, 1995), which is substantiated by empirical measurement (Brock et

al., 2009; Hastie, 1998a; 1998b; 2009; Hastie and Sinelnikov, 2006).

Nevertheless, in some studies, girls did not consider these differences as

problematic and continued to prefer Sport Education over more traditional

models of instruction in physical education (Hastie, 1998a; 1998b). Girls

considered themselves as important and useful to their teams and suggested

that boys’ dominance within instructional tasks allowed for the improvement of

all students since they ensured the quality of the game.

Other studies (Carlson and Hastie, 1997; Mesquita et al., 2012) revealed

greater learning opportunities for girls and lower skill-level students. However,

these Sport Education units were specifically designed using hybrid models,

completed with more monitoring from the teacher in order to minimize the

upward of higher skill-level students within learning tasks. These inconsistent

results can be explained by factors not considered in the Sport Education

research, such as the effect of time on students’ learning and the control of the

teaching-learning process within Sport Education units.

Effect of time on students’ learning outcomes

Research suggests that skilful game play takes time and therefore the

length of the unit plays a key role in students’ learning outcomes (Hastie,

1998a; 1998b; Hastie et al., 2013; Mesquita et al., 2012; Pritchard et al., 2008).

The complexity of the organization of activities within Sport Education

(distributing roles, establishing formal competition, allocating students to teams,

among others) while important and necessary, also has an impact on the time

Review Article

52

available for learning. By consequence, shorter units leave less time for learning

and improvements, and can be counterproductive to the development of skill

performance (Hastie et al., 2013). In the case of studies in this review in which

teachers indeed reported some scepticism about students’ improvements

during Sport Education units (Clarke and Quill, 2003; Curnow and McDonald,

1995). These perceptions are actually supported by students’ empirical

assessment as Hastie et al. (2009) who notes the “analysis of the decision-

making components of the GPAI data showed that the students had little tactical

sophistication in their play until the end of the season” (Hastie et al., 2009, p.

139). Moreover, in the study of Hastie et al. (2013) shorter units were proven to

be ineffective. It would appear then, that units longer than the typical physical

education units (18-20 lessons), as well as a careful control of lesson time (for

instance, establishments of rules and routines within the lesson) are essential to

achieve students’ learning outcomes in Sport Education. All those studies that

followed these criteria showed improvements in Sport Education units.

Literature in teaching in physical education support these claims, emphasizing

the critical role of the length of the unit and, consequently, the number of

positive practice trials in skill development (Hastie et al., 20011). Nevertheless,

educational authorities across the globe continue to limit the time that can be

spent on one particular sport in physical education (Hastie et al., 2013).

Nevertheless, longer units cannot by themselves overcome the

differentiating effect of gender and skill-level. Indeed, even following

Siedentop’s (1994) recommendations, student improvements in Sport

Education units are still ambiguous, with some studies reporting higher

opportunities afforded to boys and higher skill-level students and others to girls

and lower skill-level students. The application of more than one unit

consecutively over time may benefit the dynamics of social and instructional

system that occur within working groups (teams) and consequently improve

student’s learning (Wallhead and O'Sullivan, 2005). It is therefore not surprising

that several authors consider the urgency in studying the impact of Sport

Education with a longitudinal data collections protocol, which extends past the

end of one or two units (Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead and O'Sullivan, 2005).

Review Article

53

However, to date, its dearth persists and until now no study has focused on

students’ learning outcomes past a one-season experience (Hastie et al., 2011).

Moreover, within the Sport Education research gathered for this review,

few articles indicated the time between the assessment moments and the Sport

Education unit. Only five studies refer the days between the assessment

moments (pretest and posttest) and the unit. In two studies (Hastie et al., 2013;

Li and Cruz, 2009) the assessment of skill, tactical development and

performance are realized immediately before (pretest) and after (posttest) the

Sport Education unit. In other two studies (Hastie and Trost, 2002; Hastie et al.,

2009) the initial evaluation is realized during the first lessons whilst the final

evaluations take place during the final lessons of the unit. Beyond that, almost

all of the studies have only analysed improvements before and after the unit,

rarely measuring for changes during the unit which is crucial to implementing

remedial pedagogical strategies that might allow for greater student learning.

Only two studies (Hastie et al., 2009; Pritchard et al., 2008) utilized a mid-test in

order to access the evolution of students’ improvements during a unit. Finally,

most of the research focused on the educational impact of Sport Education

model does not consider the application of a retention test. In fact, this test is

perhaps crucial for a more accurate assessment of all students’ improvements

(Haerens and Tallir, 2012; Magill, 2011) than simply a post-test. From the

analysis of the empirical research focused on the impact of Sport Education on

students’ learning, only one study considered the application of a retention test

(Mesquita et al., 2012). In this study, the highest student improvements were

found in the second posttest and students continued to improve from the first to

the second posttest.

Control of the teaching-learning process

The devolution of content knowledge from the teacher to the student-

coach and student-coach leadership skills have been identified as potentially

problematic for content development during peer-teaching tasks (Hastie, 2000;

Wallhead and O'Sullivan, 2007). Despite this concern and the calls for the

analysis of the teaching-learning process (Hastie, 2000; Hastie et al., 2011;

Review Article

54

Wallhead and O'Sullivan, 2005), researchers have still fallen short in this area.

To date, research on Sport Education has only focused on students’ learning

outcomes and students’ and teachers’ perceptions. These types of studies are

potentially problematic since there is a lack of interpretation of the results

concerning students’ learning. Indeed, the studies are limited to the number of

lessons, the sport selected for the seasons under examination, the

characterization of the Sport Education unit and the content presented within

each of the lessons (e.g. Hastie, 1998a; 1998b; Mesquita et al., 2012).

Additionally, other authors have added instruction and treatment validity to

validate that the instruction was indeed consistent within the Sport Education

standards (Calderón et al., 2010; Hastie and Sinelnikov, 2006; Hastie et al.,

2009). Therefore, more research concerning the teaching-learning process,

particularly according to the dynamics of the peer-teaching tasks and the control

of the content to be taught within Sport Education units is needed.

Dynamics of the peer-teaching tasks

Despite not being specifically related to students’ learning, the dynamics of

the peer-teaching tasks have potential influence on learning outcomes. In fact,

opportunities for learning are seen as a complex relationship between the

students’ social task system and the instruction task system (Doyle, 1977).

Although not specifically related to students’ learning, some studies in this

review reported the occurrence of inequities during Sport Education units,

particularly during the competition phase (Brock et al., 2009; Curnow and

McDonald, 1995; Hastie, 1998a; Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012a; 2012b).

More specifically, boys and higher skill-level students are dominantly positioned

over girls and lower skill-level students. Examples include taking most of the

leadership roles, controlling game play, making most of the decisions, claiming

best times and spaces in the gym, and usurping girls who were placed in

leadership roles (Brock et al., 2009; Curnow and McDonald, 1995; Hastie,

1998a; Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012b; 2012a). Beyond that, the teachers in

the studies reviewed seem to do little to disrupt or dismantle this pattern,

thereby reinforcing traditional gender roles and expectations and considering

Review Article

55

these inequities as normal (Parker and Curtner-Smith, 2012a; 2012b). Future

research and Sport Education implementation should contemplate the control of

students’ participation in order to guarantee equitable participation (e.g. rotate

roles throughout the unit; examining social relationships between students

within peer-teaching tasks).

To date, there have only been two studies that considered the analysis of

the teaching-learning process (Hastie, 2000; Wahl-Alexander and Curtner-

Smith, 2013). Hastie (2000) analysed a Sport Education unit from an ecological

perspective and found high levels of student engagement in all dimensions

under analysis (instruction and management system). According to Hastie

(2000), these results can be explained by an inspection of Sport Education’s

specific features, namely, the management system (in which protocols were

carefully defined), the student social system (driven by team affiliation with all

students working toward common goals) and the content-embedded

accountability (where all tasks performed during the Sport Education unit

counted toward a team’s score). These results were supported by Wahl-

Alexander and Curtner-Smith (2013) who examined the influence of

negotiations between students and preservice teachers on instruction during

multi-activity curriculum and Sport Education lessons. Within multi-activity

lessons, negotiations were common and negative, increased as the unit

progressed, and adversely influence the preservice teachers’ practices. Sport

Education negotiations were relatively positive and occasional, declined

throughout the season and enabled the preservice teachers to provide quality

physical education lessons.

Through the study of the dynamics of the peer-teaching tasks it would be

possible to detect weaknesses in the implementation of the Sport Education,

which strengthen this model. More specifically, with the study of these dynamics

it would be possible to detect and reduce weaknesses in the social system

operating within the groups and achieve an effective program of action through

the alignment of the students’ social system and the instructional system. All of

this could be achieved without decreasing the strength of the social system (i.e.

Review Article

56

avoiding the oppression exercised by student-coaches on their peers) (Hastie,

2000; 2012).

Control of the content to be taught

The primary concern of Sport Education is the pedagogical environment

as is teacher and students’ roles. In essence, in his development of the model,

Siedentop (2004) desired the promotion of a more democratic and inclusive

pedagogy in order to provide richer and authentic sports experiences in physical

education (Siedentop, 1994). In this way, during a Sport Education unit there is

a need to control the content to be taught, particularly through the application of

hybrid models and protocols which promote the devolution of leadership and

knowledge from the teacher to student-coaches. To date, this issue has been

scarce in the research designs, reported in the literature.

The call to address the content knowledge domain has already been

somewhat answered through alliances between Sport Education and other

instructional models. Examples included hybrids between the Teaching Games

for Understanding (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006), the Invasion Games

Competence Model specifically for the invasion games (Mesquita et al., 2012)

and the Step Game Approach for Volleyball (Mesquita et al., 2005). In these

hybrid units, the lesson structure followed Sport Education principles (persisting

teams, formal competition and student roles) whilst lesson tasks followed the

didactical framework of the other instructional model. However, to date only two

studies have reported outcomes from hybrid approaches (Hastie and Curtner-

Smith, 2006; Mesquita et al., 2012). In the first study Hastie and Curtner-Smith

(2006) examined the teacher’s and students’ perceptions and experiences

during a hybrid Sport Education – Teaching Games for Understanding unit. The

participants in this study were 29 sixth-grade students who participated in a 22-

lesson batting/fielding games season. Students were reported to be able to

understand, appreciate and implement rudimentary batting and fielding game

tactics. Mesquita et al. (2012) analysed the impact of a hybrid Sport Education -

Invasion Games Competence model on student’s skill and tactical development

and game performance. In this study, 26 fifth-grade students participated in a

Review Article

57

22-lesson soccer unit. Results revealed students’ improvements in skill

execution and tactical decisions, both defensive and offensive. Game scores

were particularly significant for girls. These results suggest the benefits of the

application of Sport Education simultaneously with other didactic models

specifically designed to teach the technical and tactical performance in team

sports.

Student-coaches’ content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge

(Shulman, 1987) have been identified as potentially problematic during peer-

teaching tasks. Through a defined didactic research methodology (Amade-

Escot, 2005), Wallhead and O'Sullivan (2007) found a misalignment in the

emergence of the didactic contract during peer-teaching tasks. In that study

student-coaches showed difficulties in elaborating content through appropriate

demonstration, error diagnosis and task modification. These difficulties caused

problematic breaches in the didactic contract during peer-teaching tasks.

Beyond that, insufficient leadership skills of the student-coaches in the peer-

teaching tasks have been enhanced by research, such as management skills

and equity principles (Alexander and Luckman, 2001; Brock et al., 2009). Thus,

Sport Education implementations must be aware of how the devolution of

leadership skills from the teacher to student-coaches’ is made, and the issue

itself becomes a priority in the research agenda. The difficulties associated with

student-coaches’ knowledge and leadership skills emphasize the need to

provide more effective student-coaches’ preparation. That is, protocols which

examine the devolution of knowledge and leadership from the teacher to

student-coaches should be examined within Sport Education research. Indeed,

this is imperative given Siedentop’s (1995) claim that “a void exists in how to

identify, teach, and provide practice for the leadership skills necessary for

successful coaching within the tasks of the Sport Education curriculum”

(Siedentop, 1995, p. 22).

Review Article

58

Conclusion

Sport Education research has shown the robustness and strengths of the

model in providing richer experiences to students’ in the context of physical

education. Nevertheless, this article has shown several gaps in Sport Education

research which may help to explain the variable results concerning students’

learning. The control of the content to be taught has emerged as one of those

gaps. Despite research which has considered alliances between Sport

Education (focused on pedagogical environment) and instructional models that

define the learning tasks to be implemented considering the specificity of the

sport to be taught (Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006; Mesquita et al., 2012),

more research applying these hybrid approaches is needed. Moreover,

difficulties associated with student-coaches’ content and leadership skills have

been identified as problematic within Sport Education research. Therefore,

future research should define, implement, and evaluate protocols for student-

coaches’ preparation in order to understand the influence of this issue on

students’ learning.

Another gap identified was the effect of time on students’ learning

outcomes, which has not been completely controlled. In fact, research within

Sport Education has reinforced the influence of learning time (both the length

and the number of units) on students’ learning. Although learning time is

essential for any instructional approach, it takes particularly prominence within

Sport Education. Sport Education units with greater than 20 lessons and the

application of more than one unit consequently over time may serve to improve

the dynamics of social and instructional system that occur within working

groups, and consequently improve students’ learning. Furthermore, research

within Sport Education focused on students’ learning has used mainly one final

evaluation, which does not allow the assessment of the retention of students’

improvements. As noted there is evidence that when research considers

application the of a retention test, students’ improvements are found to be

superior (Mesquita et al., 2012). Future research may therefore consider the

Review Article

59

application of a retention test in order to a more complete assessment of

students’ improvements.

The analysis of students’ improvements when considering gender and skill

level separately has also shown a bias in the results of students’ learning.

Indeed, it is possible to observe that girls are usually the lower skilled students

at the beginning of the units (Hastie et al., 2009; Mesquita et al., 2012), which

demonstrate that skill level might be influenced by students’ gender. Brock et al.

(2009) showed two girls with high status in all the categories (such as,

personality, economic level, attractiveness, athletic, etc.), making almost all the

decisions for the team, and silencing the rest of the players of their team.

However, to date, there has only been one study that simultaneously

considered gender and skill level (Hastie, 1998b) (lower skilled female, medium

skilled make, higher skilled female and higher skilled male). Future studies

should therefore consider the interaction of gender and skill level in the analysis

of students’ learning improvements in order to obtain a more realist portrait of

the impact of Sport Education.

This review has also demonstrated that the analysis of students’ learning

has been centred on a superficial assessment of the teaching-learning process.

Indeed, Sport Education research regarding students’ learning has focused

mainly on the assessment of students’ improvements through the use of quasi-

experimental (pretest-posttest), descriptive and exploring (students’ and

teachers perceptions), in order to obtain performance measures. This review

has shown large gaps since it is possible to identify the performance level

achieved by the students, but it doesn’t allow access to the problems operating

within the instructional, social and management agenda. For instance, the

dynamics within the working groups should be considered in order to better

understand students’ learning opportunities. Only through understanding these

dynamics would it be possible to understand the teaching-learning process and

guide future Sport Education implementation. Appropriate studies would include

those that examine if learning opportunities provide inclusion and equity

participation, if the instruction given by the student-coach is sufficient to address

the problems that emerge during peer-teaching tasks, or if students’ status

Review Article

60

within working groups is based in equitable principles and inclusion, among

others. In order to reach an understanding of the teaching-learning process, it is

necessary to therefore use research designs that attend to the complexity of

this process. Action-research and case studies are two particularly research

designs with the potential to fill this void and provide a richer description of

Sport Education implementation. Particularly, action-research designs allow a

close monitoring in the implementation of pedagogical approaches (Casey and

Dyson, 2009), such is the case of Sport Education model, and allow teachers to

achieve better and further-reaching results when it is used to achieve

pedagogical change (Van Looy and Goegebeur, 2007).

Since the Hastie et al. (2011) review in which limitations and future

research directions were provided, some of areas of research on Sport

Education have not yet been examined in full, particularly the need for

longitudinal data collection and the deep analysis of student peer instruction.

These limitations might explain the lack of more complex, long lasting and

perhaps more expensive research designs.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science

and Technology (FCT) (SFRH/BD/72361/2010) / POPH / QREN / European Social

Fund awarded to the first author. Additionally, the authors would like to thank

Cláudio Farias for his assistance with the reparation of this manuscript.

References

Alexander, K. and Luckman, J. (2001) Australian teachers’ perceptions and

uses of the sport education curriculum model. European Physical

Education Review 7, 243-267.

Alexander, K., Taggart, A. and Thorpe, A. (1996) A spring in their steps?

Possibilities for professional renewal through sport education in Australian

schools. Sport, Education and Society 1, 23-46.

Review Article

61

Amade-Escot, C. (2005) Using the Critical Didactic Incidents Method to Analyze

the Content Taught. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 24, 127-

148.

Bennett, G. and Hastie, P. (1997) A sport education curriculum model for a

collegiate physical activity course. Journal of Physical Education,

Recreation and Dance 68, 39-44.

Brock, S., Rovegno, I. and Oliver, K. (2009) The influence of student status on

student interactions and experiences during a sport education unit.

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14, 355-375.

Browne, T., Carlson, T. and Hastie P. (2004) A comparison of rugby seasons

presented in traditional and sport education formats. European Physical

Education Review 10, 199-214.

Calderón, A. L., Hastie, P. and Martinez, D. O. (2010) Learning to Teach Sport

Education: Initial Experience in Elementary Education. Cultura, Ciencia y

Deporte 5, 169-180. (In Spanish: English abstract).

Carlson, T. (1995) Now I think I can: The reaction of eight low-skilled students

to sport education. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal 42, 6-8.

Carlson, T. and Hastie, P. (1997) The Student Social System Within Sport

Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 16, 176-195.

Casey, A., and Dyson, B. (2009). The implementation of models-based practice

in physical education trough action research. European Physical

Education Review, 15(2), 175-199.

Cho, O., Richards, K., Blankenship, B. Smith, A. and Templin, T. (2012) Motor

Skill Development of Students Enrolled in a Sport Education Volleyball

Season Delivered by In-Service Physical Education Teachers. Physical

Educator 69, 375-394.

Clarke, G. and Quill, M. (2003) Researching sport education in action: a case

study. European Physical Education Review 9, 253-266.

Cruz, A. (2008) The experience of implementing sport education model. Journal

of Physical Education and Recreation (Hong Kong) 14, 18-31.

Review Article

62

Curnow, J. and Macdonald, D. (1995) Can Sport Education be gender inclusive:

a case study in an upper primary school. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles

Journal 42, 9-11.

Doyle, W. (1977) Paradigms of research on teacher efectiveness. In: Review of

research in education. Ed: Shulman, L.S. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.

Ennis, C. (1999) Creating a Culturally Relevant Curriculum for Disengaged

Girls. Sport, Education, and Society 4, 31-49.

Flintoff, A. (2008) Targeting Mr. Average: participation, gender equity, and

school sport partnerships. Sport, Education and Society 13, 413-431.

Flintoff, A., Fitzgerald, H. and Scraton, S. (2008) The challanges of

intersectionality: researching difference in physical education. International

Studies in Sociology of Education 18, 73-85.

Grant, B. C. (1992) Integrating sport into the physical education curriculum in

New Zealand secondary schools. Quest 44, 304-316.

Gutiérrez, D., García-López, L. M.,Hastie P. and Calderón, A. (2013) Spanish

students’ perceptions of their participation in seasons of sport education.

The Global Journal of Health and Physical Education Pedagogy 2, 111-

127.

Haerens, L. and Tallir, I. (2012) Experimental research methods in physical

education and sports. In: Research Methods in Physical Education and

Youth Sport. Ed: Armour, K. and Macdonald, D. London: Routledge.

Harris, J. D., Quatman, C. E., Manring, M. M., Siston, R. A. and Flanigan,D. C.

(in press). How to Write a Systematic Review. The American Journal of

Sports Medicine, advanced publication online on August 7, 2013,

doi:10.1177/0363546513497567.

Hastie, P. (1998a) The Participation and Perceptions of Girls Within a Unit of

Sport Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17, 157-171.

Hastie, P. (1998b) Skill and tactical development during a sport education

season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69, 368-379.

Hastie, P. (2000) An Ecological Analysis of a Sport Education Season. Journal

of Teaching in Physical Education 19, 355-373.

Review Article

63

Hastie, P. (2012) The nature and purpose of Sport Education as an educational

experience. In: Sport Education: international perspectives (Routledge

Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport. Ed: Hastie, P. USA:

Routledge.

Hastie, P., Calderón, A., Palao, J., and Ortega, E. (2011). Quantity and quality

of practice: Interrelationships between task organization and student skill

level in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 82,

784-787.

Hastie, P., Calderón, A., Rolim, R. and Guarino, A. J. (2013) The Development

of Skill and Knowledge During a Sport Education Season of Track and

Field Athletics. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 84, 336-344.

Hastie, P., Martinez, D. O. and Caloderón, A. (2011) A Review of Research on

Sport Education: 2004 to the Present. Physical Education and Sport

Pedagogy 16, 103-132.

Hastie, P. and Sinelnikov, O. (2006) Russian students’ participation in and

perceptions of a season of Sport Education. European Physical Education

Review 12, 131-150.

Hastie, P., Sinelnikov, O. and Guarino, A. J. (2009) The development of skill


Journal of Sport Science 9, 133-140.

Hastie, P. and Trost, S. G. (2002) Student Physical Activity Levels During a

Season of Sport Education. Pediatric Exercise Science 14, 64-74.

Hastie, P. and Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006) Influence of a hybrid Sport


his students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 11, 1-27.

Kinchin, G. D., Penney, D. and Clarke, G. (2001) Teaching the national

curriculum physical education: try sport education? British Journal of

Teaching Physical Education 32, 41-44.

Kirk, D. (2010) Physical Education Futures. Routledge, Oxon.

Li, C. and Cruz, A. (2009) Learning and Teaching Experiences of Sport

Education. Asian Journal of Physical Education & Recreation 15, 6-15.

Review Article

64

Magill, R. A. (2011) Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications.

McGraw-Hill, New York.

Mesquita, I. (2012) Fundar o lugar do Desporto na escola através do Modelo de

Educação Desportiva. In: Professor de Educação Física: Fundar e

dignificar a profissão. Ed: Mesquita, I. and Bento J. Belo Horizonte: Casa

da Educação Física.

Mesquita, I., Farias, C. and Hastie P. (2012) The impact of a hybrid Sport


decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. European

Physical Education Review 18, 205-219.

Mesquita, I., Graça, A., Gomes, A. R. and Cruz, C. (2005) Examining the

Impact of a Step Game Approach to Teaching Volleyball on Student

Tactical Decision Making and Skill Execution During Game Play. Journal

of Human Movement Studies 48, 469-492.

Moher, D., Schulz, K. and Altman, D. (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised

recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group

randomised trials. The Lancet 357, 1191-1194.

Nicaise, V., Bois, K., Fairclough, S., Amorose, A. and Geneviève, G. (2007)

Girls' and boys' perceptions of physical eduation teachers' feedback:

effects on performance and psychological responses. Journal of Sport

Sciences 25, 915-926.

Oslin, J., Mitchell, S. and Griffin, L. (1998) The Game Performance Assessment

Instrument (GPAI): Development and Preliminary Validation. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education 17, 231-243.

Parker, M. B. and Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2012a) Preservice teachers' use of

production and reproduction teaching styles within multi-activity and sport

education units. European Physical Education Review 18, 127-143.

Parker, M. B. and Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2012b) Sport education: a panacea for

hegemonic masculinity in physical education or more of the same? Sport

Education and Society 17, 479-496.

Pritchard, T., Hawkins, A., Wiegand, R. and Metzler, J. (2008) Effects of Two

Instructional Approaches on Skill Development, Knowledge, and Game

Review Article

65

Performance. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science

12, 219-236.

Shimon, J. (2005) Red alert: gender equity issues in secondary physical

education. Journal of Physical Edcaution Recreation and Dance 76, 6-10.

Shulman, L. S. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.

Harvard Educational Review 15, 4-14.

Siedentop, D. (1994) Sport Education: Quality PE through positive sport

experiences. Human Kinetics, Champaingn, IL.

Siedentop, D. (1995) Improving sport education. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles

Journal 42, 22-24.

Siedentop, D. (1998) What is Sport Education and how does it work? Journal of

Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 69, 18-20.

Siedentop, D., Hastie, P., & Van der Mars, H. (2011). Complete Guide to Sport

Education (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Solmon, M., Lee, A., Belcher, D., Harrison, L. and Wells, L. (2003) Beliefs about

gender appropriateness, abiity and competence in physical activity.

Journal of Teaching in Physica Education 22, 671-279.

Strickwerda-Brown, J. and Taggart, A. (2001) No longer voiceless and

exhausted: Sport education and the primary generalist teacher. ACHPER

Healthy Lifestyles Journal 48, 14-17.

Vandenbrouck, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsch, P. C., Mulrow, C. D.,

Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J. and Egger, M. (2007).

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

(STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Medicine 4, 1628-1654.

Van Looy, L., and Goegebeur, W. (2007). Teachers and teacher trainees as

classroom researchers: Beyond Utopia? Educational Action Research 15,

107-126.

Wahl-Alexander, Z. and Curtner-Smith, M. (2013) Influence of negotiations

between preservice teachers and pupils on instruction within multi-activity

and sport education units. Sport, Education and Society In press, 1-17.

Review Article

66

Wallhead, T. and O’Sullivan, M. (2005) Sport education: Physical education for

the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10, 181-

210.

Wallhead, T. and 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.

Williams, A. and Bedward, J. (2010) Gender, culture and the generation gap:

student and teacher perceptions of aspects of national curriculum pjysilca

education. Sport Educaiton and Society 6, 53-66.

Williams, A., Bedward, J. and Woodhouse, J. (2000) An inclusive national

curriculum? The experience of adolescent girls. European Journal of

Physical Education 5, 4-18.

Key points

• Despite research regarding has showed students’ improvements during the

participation in Sport Education seasons, it remains somewhat equivocal.

• The studies included in this review show students’ improvements on skill,

knowledge and tactical development, as we as game play, during the

participation in Sport Education units.

• Some studies report superior learning opportunities to boys and higher skill-

level students while other studies exposed superior learning opportunities to

girls and lower skill-level students.

• The effect of time on students’ learning and the control of the teaching-

learning process within Sport Education units can explain these equivocal

results.

• Future research is encouraged to consider the implementation of protocols

for student-coaches’ preparation, hybrid models, a retention test, the

interaction of gender and skill level, and use research designs that attend to

the complexity of the teaching-learning process.

III. Empirical Studies

_________________________________________________

Empirical Study 1

_________________________________________________

Students’ Game Performance Improvements during a Hy brid Sport

Education–Step-Game-Approach Volleyball Unit

Rui Araújo 1, Isabel Mesquita 1, Peter A. Hastie 2 and Cristiana Pereira 1 1 Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, CIFI2D,


In press: European Physical Education Review (2015). doi:

10.1177/1356336x15597927.

Empirical Study 1

71

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine a hybrid combination of Sport

Education and the Step-Game-Approach (SGA) on students’ game play

performance in volleyball, taking into account their sex and skill-level.

Seventeen seventh-grade students (7 girls, 10 boys, average age 11.8)

participated in a 25-lesson volleyball season, in which the structural features

followed those of Sport Education and the specific content followed the

didactical framework of the SGA. Data were collected prior to the first lesson

(pre-test), following the completion of the unit (post-test) and seven days after

the post-test (retention). The GPAI was used in a systematic observation of

video records of students’ behaviors while playing a 10-minute 2vs2 game. A 2

(sex) x 3 (time) and a 2 (skill-level) x 3 (time) analysis of variance (ANOVA) with

repeated measures across the three tests was used to compare the students’

performances on all indexes. Results showed that both boys and girls made

improvements from the pre-test to the post-test and maintained those

improvements to the retention test in almost all the indexes analysed. Further,

the results also showed that lower skill-level students realized greater gains

than those of higher skill during the unit, which reinforces the idea that future

implementations of this hybrid approaches should adjust content and learning

task to different skill-levels.

Keywords

GPAI, learning outcomes, physical education, sex, skill-level.

Empirical Study 1

72

Introduction

Sport Education is a pedagogical model born from Siedentop’s (1994)

desire to provide richer and authentic sports experiences to students in the

context of physical education. By adopting a more democratic and inclusive

pedagogy that incorporates the key features of institutionalized sport, the goal

of Sport Education is the development of competent, literate and enthusiastic

sportspersons (Siedentop, Hastie and Van der Mars, 2011).

To date, reviews of research on Sport Education (Araújo, Mesquita and

Hastie, 2014; Hastie, Martinez de Ojeda and Calderón, 2011; Wallhead and

O'Sullivan, 2005) have highlighted evidence of the achievement of those goals.

With respect to competence, a number of authors have recognized the potential

of Sport Educaiton in developing students’ skill, game-play and tactical

awareness (Alexander, Taggart and Thorpe, 1996; Hastie, 1998b; Hastie,

Calderón, Rolim et al., 2013; Mesquita, Farias and Hastie, 2012; Pritchard,

Hawkins, Wiegand et al., 2008). Nevertheless, those reviews highlighted some

key factors that warrant further investigation (Araújo et al., 2014; Hastie et al.,

2011; Wallhead and O'Sullivan, 2005).

Research on competence in Sport Education

Araújo et al. (2014) have suggested that a key factor warranting further

investigation within the development of competence in Sport Education is that of

content development within seasons. The justification for this call lies in the

location of Sport Education as an “outward-focused” model (Hastie and Curtner-

Smith, 2006: 23), in which the primary concern is the performance of the

teacher and the students in their various participatory roles (Siedentop et al.,

2011). What is less understood with respect to Sport Education is the nature of

learning tasks and the content to be taught during seasons. Where such

investigation has taken place, it has been through the examination of hybrid

models which have used the organizational characteristics of Sport Education

(persisting teams, formal competitions, roles etc.) with other forms of game

based instruction that focus more on specific pedagogies. To date these have

Empirical Study 1

73

included “teaching games for understanding” (TGfU: Hastie and Curtner-Smith,

2006), and the “invasion game competence model” (IGCM: Mesquita et al.,

2012).

Sport Education hybrid models

When combining Sport Education and TGfU, Hastie and Curtner-Smith

(2006) found the act of teaching to be particularly labor-intensive, and given the

need for the teacher to drive and give momentum to the proceedings,

demanded that the teacher possess superior content and pedagogical content

knowledge. Notwithstanding, the specificity of tactics within team sports (in

particular the differentiation between invasion and non-invasion games) makes

it necessary to build models that attend to this specificity, which is not taken into

account by TGfU (Mesquita et al., 2012). In a study examining the impact of a

hybrid Sport Education-IGCM on students’ improvements, Mesquita et al.

(2012) found that the learning tasks structure provided by the ICGM offered

students the possibility to improve their skill execution and decision-making.

This outcome was particularly beneficial for girls and lower skill-level students.

Nevertheless, to date, no study has examined the effectiveness of hybrid

models in any form other than invasion games (Araújo et al., 2014; Harvey and

Jarret, 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead and O’Sullivan, 2005). The Step-

Game-Approach model (SGA: Mesquita, Graça, Gomes et al., 2005) is one

such model that may provide an appropriate framework for the development of

game play ability in net/wall sports such as volleyball, badminton or tennis. In

the SGA, students are presented with progressive (step-by-step) game

problems that challenge their capacity for understanding and current

performance profiles. Within the SGA, three types of instructional tasks are

used. These are known as adaptation tasks (in which the goal, action structure

and basic tactical features are identical to the full game), structuring tasks

(comprehend the same tactical and technical skills of the game but without

opposition) and acquisition tasks (focused on the development of a specific

skill) (Pereira, Graça, Blomqvist et al., 2011).

Empirical Study 1

74

Research using the SGA has shown its effectiveness in the development

of volleyball game play performance (Mesquita et al., 2005). However, student

gains were not uniform across students, with girls and those in the lower skill-

level ranges seeming to improve more than boys and higher skill-level students.

The rational for combining Sport Education with the SGA is that the idea of the

persisting team allows students to practice together and to support and hold

their teammates accountable in their quest for success. Further, this affiliation

seems to promote increased engagement as all students (boys and girls, higher

and lower skilled) consider themselves as important and useful to their team’s

success (Hastie, 1998a, 1998b).

Purpose of this study

Given the lack of research on game play performance in Sport Education

non-invasion games, the purpose of the current study was to test the assertion

that a hybrid combination of Sport Education and SGA can promote students’

game play performance in volleyball. Within the study itself, a subsequent goal

was to determine the extent to which gains in students’ performance levels

might vary according to sex and skill-level.

Methods

Participants

The participants in this study were 17 seventh-grade students (7 girls, 10

boys, average age 11.8) from one middle school physical education class in

Northern Portugal. While the entire class consisted of 20 students, the data of

three students were not included in any analysis as they were not present for all

three assessments. The students had no previous experience learning

volleyball, and had not participated in Sport Education seasons prior to this

study. The teacher had more than twenty years of teaching experience, and one

year’s experience implementing both Sport Education and SGA models. The

Ethics Committee of researchers’ university approved the protocol of the study,

and all participants provided assent following parental informed consent.

Empirical Study 1

75

The Sport Education-SGA unit

The students participated in a 25-lesson volleyball unit that took place over

seven weeks. During each week, one lesson was allocated 45 minutes with the

second being of 90 minutes duration. The structural features of the unit followed

those of Sport Education (persisting teams, formal competition and student

roles), while the specific content and learning tasks followed the SGA model.

The complete unit plan is shown in Table 1.

The Sport Education features. In the first week of the unit (lessons 1 and

2), the students were divided into four mixed-ability teams of five students each.

Team allocation was based upon the teacher’s evaluation of the students’

performance on a volleyball lesson prior to the unit. The educational goals and

procedures of Sport Education were also introduced to students in these

lessons. During the following ten lesson (the pre-season), the students

participated in within-team practice in which they were given the opportunity to

practice skills and team-related roles. Non-consequence games (within and

against other teams) were also scheduled within these lessons. During the

competition phase (lessons 13-24), all teams participated in a series of matches

that counted towards a class championship. The formal competition schedule

guaranteed the equitable participation of all students by ensuring the same

playing time for all students and that all students competed in matches against

those of similar skill level.

Students also experienced different roles (coaches, referees and

statisticians) on a rotating basis. The student taking the role of coach was

chosen by the teacher. In this way, potential imbalanced power relations

between students based on status portrayed by accounts in earlier research on

Sport Education (e.g. Brock, Rovegno and Oliver, 2009; Hastie, 1998a) were

minimized. In addition, the students were held accountable for their fair-play

behaviours. For example, teams accumulated point penalties within lessons if

they displayed actions that compromised inclusive practices, effort, peer

encouragement, and engagement in the managerial tasks.

Empirical Study 1

76

The teacher took most of the instructional leadership responsibilities in the

beginning lessons. Nevertheless, throughout the season the student-coaches

were progressively called on to take upon more responsibility for instruction

during peer-assisted tasks. From leading instruction only during warm-ups from

lessons two through five, the students-coaches began to lead instruction from

lesson seven and chose the learning tasks deemed required for their teams’

performance improvements from lesson 11 onwards. The training of the

students-coaches included prior-lesson meetings throughout the unit where

they learned not only subject matter content, but also instructional strategies

related to task presentation, management and feedback.

The SGA processes. Based on students’ performance in a 2vs2

assessment test conducted prior to the unit, the first step game was applied

(Mesquita et al., 2005). The 2vs2 game is a modified game form most suitable

for the diagnosis of the level of the participants. On the one hand, it allows the

identification of basic performance levels when players are unable to minimally

sustain the ball. On the other hand, it also identifies performance levels above

that range from the minimum capacity to support the ball (step 2) to the capacity

of organizing game actions (early 3rd step), or even the ability to differentiate the

most suitable solutions for the game situation (early 4th step). The main goal of

the first step was for students to understand the logic of the simplest game

form, that being 1vs1. In order to maximize performance during the 1vs1 game,

two main tactical skills were taught. These were coined as “intervention” (get

your body to the ball), and “opposition” (send the ball to the vulnerable place on

the opponent’s court, both in the serve and in the attack). During this step, the

technical focus was on the overhead pass and the underhand serve. In the

second phase of the unit, the second step of the SGA was also taught, in which

the main goal was to cooperate with the teammate in the 2vs2 game. The SGA

suggests the introdution of the forearm pass because after learning the

overhead pass the player needs another skill for touching the ball coming from

lower and faster trajectories. Nevertheless, there was no time during the unit to

teach this skill.

Empirical Study 1

77

This Sport Education-SGA hybrid also comprised procedures for game

modification, namely representation and exaggeration modes (Thorpe, Bunker

and Almond, 1984). Throughout the unit, based on the previous

recommendations of Mesquita et al. (2005), some rules were adapted in order

to provide a more developmentally appropriate form. First, one rebound was

permitted when necessary, as it provided more time to analyse the trajectory of

the ball and helped players to place their bodies behind the ball. Second,

double touches were allowed in order to permit players to correct a previous

defective contact.

During team and individual practice sessions, three types of instructional

tasks were used. In the adaptation tasks, the goal, action structure and basic

tactical features were identical to the full volleyball game. Nevertheless, in order

to improve the quality of game play, the teacher found it was not sufficient to

work directly on adaptation tasks. When students were not able to control

actions to play basic game tasks, the structuring tasks afforded students the

opportunity to improve the quality of tactical and technical skills. These tasks

preserved the sequence of defensive and/or offensive actions even if the choice

of possible solutions to the actual game problem had to be restricted. Beyond

that, when necessary, acquisition tasks were also used. These tasks were only

focused on the development of a specific piece of technical or tactical content.

From the first to the last lessons, the variability of practice was gradually

reduced, but the time spent in acquisition tasks was reduced to the minimum

necessary to prevent game disruption (Mesquita et al., 2005).

Empirical Study 1

78

Table 1. Sport Education-SGA Volleyball unit outline. Lesson Content

1 and 2

Explanation of the model and competition format Allocation of teams and individual roles Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass, 1vs1 Within-team event practice

3 Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass and 1vs1 (position on court) Within-team practice

4 and 5 Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass, 1vs1 (intervention) Within-team practice

6 Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass, 1vs1 (intervention) Within-team practice

7 and 8

Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass and 1vs1 (opposition) Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring)

9


10


11 and 12

Student-directed instruction: warm-up, serve and 1vs1 (opposition) Lesson planned by the teacher with students having the opportunity to plan some learning-tasks Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring)

13

Formal Competition: 1vs1 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, serve and 1vs1 (opposition) Lesson planned by the teacher with students having the opportunity to plan some learning-tasks Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring)

14 and 15

Formal Competition: 1vs1 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, and 1vs1 Lesson planned by the teacher with students having the opportunity to plan some learning-tasks Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring)

16

Formal Competition: 1vs1 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, and 1vs1 Lesson planned by the teacher with students having the opportunity to plan some learning-tasks Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring)

17 - 19

Formal Competition: 1vs1 and 2vs2 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, and 1vs1 Lesson planned by the teacher with students having the opportunity to plan some learning-tasks Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring)

20-24

Formal Competition: 2vs2 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, and 2vs2 Lesson planned by the teacher with students having the opportunity to plan some learning-tasks

Empirical Study 1

79

Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring)

25 Culminating event

Instructional and treatment validity

In order to determine the influence of a particular pedagogical model in

students’ learning, it was critical to validate that the instruction was consistent

with accepted standards of the models and if the contextual features allowed for

the successful implementation of those models (Hastie and Casey, 2014).

Itemizing teacher and learner processes. A 10-item checklist (Table 2) with

benchmarks was adapted from Hastie et al. (2013) and Pereira et al. (2011) to

confirm the behavioral fidelity of the teacher’s instruction according to the Sport

Education model and SGA. One researcher of the present study and an

outside-trained observer not associated with the study (but with extensive

research in instructional models in physical education) observed randomly

selected lessons of the unit to assess the presence of those items. Items 1, 3,

4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are characteristics of Sport Education, while the rest of the

items are related to SGA model. A 100% agreement between these observers

confirmed the absence of doubt regarding the instructional model used in each

lesson.

Contextual and operational requirements. For an instructional model to

work it has to reunite some favourable contextual conditions, such as teacher

expertise and operational requirements (Metzler, 2011). With respect to teacher

expertise, the teacher participated in a Sport Education professional

development program during the year previously to this study. The workshop

consisted of (a) several lectures focused on teaching styles and instructional

models; (b) lectures on the features of the Sport Education model as well as its

conceptualization and purposes; (c) the application of Sport Education to

teaching individual sports with the example of track and field seasons; (d) the

application of Sport Education to teaching volleyball; and (e) Sport Education

research: domains and empirical evidence. Also during the year prior to this

study the teacher had accomplished his master’s degree, which involved the

implementation of a hybrid Sport Education-SGA volleyball unit. Finally, the

Empirical Study 1

80

space (at least three volleyball courts in all lessons) and material available for

practice (e.g. balls, cones, scorers, whistles, etc.) were sufficient to create the

necessary conditions to maximize student learning during practice and

competition.

Table 2. Instructional checklist (adapted from Hastie et al., 2013 and Pereira et al., 2011). Element of the lesson Present Absent 1. Group of students go to a designated home

area and begin warming up with that group.

2. The tasks under observation are basic game forms, game-like tasks or acquisition tasks, and the time spent in acquisition tasks is reduced to the minimum necessary.

3. Students practice together with their group/team under the direction of a peer leader.

4. The content of the task is related with the stage of the SGA that is being taught during the unit.

5. Students remain a part of easily identifiable groups throughout the lesson and throughout different tasks.

6. All the tasks are related with the small-sided game that is being taught.

7. Performance records are kept by students. 8. Students perform specialized tasks within

their group/team.

9. Student performance scores count toward a formal and public scoring system.

10. Modifications to the full-game were performed.

Design

The goal of this study was to examine the efficacy of a particular

curriculum intervention in promoting improvements in students’ volleyball game

play skills. It was not the goal to demonstrate the superiority of this model over

other forms of instruction, but merely to determine if improvement scores were

possible in this context. By consequence, a pre-post-retention test quasi-

experimental design was used without the concurrent application of a control

Empirical Study 1

81

group, which is consistent with the designs of other studies involving hybrid

models (e.g. Mesquita et al., 2012; Pritchard, McCollum, Sundal et al., 2014).

Data collection

Data were collected prior to the first lesson of the unit (pre-test: PreT) and

following completion of the unit (post-test: PosT). Consistent with the

recommendations of Haerens and Tallir (2012) and Magill (2011), a retention

test (ReT) was also applied seven days after the PosT in order to provide a

more accurate assessment of all students’ improvements. During this time from

PosT to ReT, none of the students received any instruction related to either

Sport Education or volleyball.

A systematic observation of video records of students’ behaviors while

playing a 10 minute 2vs2 game was used in order to analyse students’ play

performance at the PreT, PosT and ReT. The Game Performance Assessment

Instrument (GPAI; Oslin, Mitchell and Griffin, 1998) adapted to volleyball by

Mesquita et al. (2005) was used. More specifically, the tally scoring method

recommended by Mitchell, Oslin and Griffin (2006) was used, in which students’

game play actions were assessed as appropriate/effective or

inappropriate/ineffective responses. When the amounts of those actions were

totalled, an individual component index was calculated.

For the purpose of the present study four indexes were calculated. These

were Decision Making (DM), Adjust (ADJ), Skill Efficiency (SE) and Skill

Efficacy (SEF). The DM index refers to the ability to choose which movement to

execute in response to a tactical problem (for instance, play the ball to the

vulnerable place of the opponent’s court). In addition, ADJ involves the ability to

adjust position to the play the ball (for instance, adjust a position to play the ball

according to the player who does the 2nd touch). Moreover, after the players

decide what they are going to perform and adjust as needed to the game, skill

execution (for instance, raise and cup hands in front and above the forehead in

order to touch the ball) and skill efficacy (point, continuity or error in the attack)

should be attended to achieve the desired outcome (Mitchell et al., 2006).

Narrow definitions of these behaviors were developed in order to specifically

Empirical Study 1

82

and reliably identify appropriate and inappropriate actions (Memmert and

Harvey, 2008). The Game Performance (GP) index was also calculated

[(DMI+AI+SEI+EFI)/4] as was Game Involvement (GI; Mitchell et al., 2006). A

total of 18368 students’ behaviours in a total of approximately 510 minutes of

observations were collected.

Reliability

The reliability of the data was examined from two perspectives, namely

intra-observer (15 days after the first observation) and inter-observer testing

procedures (performed by a second observer). Keeping with the

recommendations of Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), over 10 % of all player

actions were examined. Two observers with experience in the area of

instructional models, particularly Sport Education, and also volleyball coaches

and former volleyball players conducted the reliability analysis. Both received

training in order to effectively identify appropriate and inappropriate actions.

This reliability was calculated with all indexes considered in the present study

(in a total of 36) using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC; Atkinson and

Nevill, 1998; Baumgartner and Jackson, 1995). The only correlation scores that

fell below the recommendations of van der Mars (1989) were for DM at post-test

for both inter and intra-oberver assessments (0.66 and 0.77 respectively).

Data analysis

A 2 (sex) x (time) and a 2 (skill-level) x (3 (time) analysis of variance

(ANOVA) with repeated measures across the three tests (PreT, PosT and ReT)

was used to compare the students’ performances on all indexes. Skill-level

groups were determined through a non-hierarchical cluster analysis based on

students’ performance on the PreT using the K-means method with the number

of clusters being fixed at two (Cluster 1: 11 higher skill-level students; Cluster 2:

6 lower skill-level students).

The data of the repeated measures ANOVA were subjected to Mauchley’s

test for sphericity. When the Mauchley’s sphericity assumption was violated, the

ANOVA results were adjusted using the Geisser-Greenhouse correction. Main

Empirical Study 1

83

effects and interactions were analysed and subsequent Bonferroni post hoc

comparisons to access better where differences occurred.

Results

The students’ performance for all indexes at the three time points of the

unit are shown in Table 3. From this table, it can be see that the whole class

made significant improvements in almost all areas of volleyball play from PreT

to PosT, and maintained these improvements at least until the ReT. Only the

DM index showed no differences across the three points of assessment. In

addition, figure 1 outlines the game performance improvements of all students

throughout the season.

Table 3. Student performance for all indexes.

PreT M (SD)

PosT M (SD)

ReT M (SD)

Time effect

F p η2

PreT-PosT comparison

PostT-ReT comparison

F p η2

F p η2

GP

0.58 (0.18)

0.75 (0.07)

0.73 (0.08)

12.91 <0.001 0.465

18.33 0.001

0.4534

1.10 0.310 0.064

GI

189.82 (82.27)

358.41 (140.09)

382.71 (126.43)

40.62 <0.001 0.717

52.78 <0.001

0.767

1.00 0.332 0.059

DM

0.47 (0.19)

0.61 (0.13)

0.57 (0.16)

2.98 0.065 0.157

6.02 0.026

0.273

0.539 0.474 0.033

AD

J 0.55 (0.18)

0.72 (0.08)

0.72 (0.09)

12.39 <0.001

0.44 13.90 0.002

0.465

0.00 0.985

0.00

SE

0.72 (0.25)

0.91 (0.07)

0.89 (0.08)

8.87 0.001

0.38 10.54 0.005

0.397

2.051 0.171

0.114

SE

F

0.56 (0.24)

0.75 (0.13)

0.73 (0.14)

11.45 0.002 0.42

13.36 0.002

0.455

0.592 0.453 0.036

M – mean; SD – standard deviation.

Analysis by sex

Results from the repeated measures ANOVA are shown in Table 4. From

this table it can be seen that there was a significant main effect for time for all

Empirical Study 1

84

variables, but the only significant sex x time interaction was found for GI. In this

case, the gains for boys were more substantive than those for girls. Post hoc

analysis of all variables showed improvements from PreT to PosT and no

difference between the PosT and ReT.

Figure 2 - Students' game performance improvements throughout the season

Empirical Study 1

85

Table 4. Performance for all Indexes by students’ sex.

Boys Girls Time effect

Sex x time interaction

F p η2

PreT-Post comparison

PosT-ReT comparison

PreT M (SD)

PosT M (SD)

ReT M (SD)

PreT M (SD)

PosT M (SD)

ReT M (SD)

F p η2

F p η2

F p η2

GP

0.65 (0.12)

0.76 (0.07)

0.74 (0.09)

0.47 (0.20)

0.72 (0.07)

0.71 (0.07)

16.98 <0.001 0.531

22.56 <0.001 0.601 0.903 0.057

2.53 0.12 0.144

GI 216.30

(92.77) 448.80 (103.45)

439.80 (127.03)

152.00 (48.01)

229.29 (56.67)

301.14 (72.32)

50.08 <0.001

0.770 125.38 <0.001

0.893 1,83 0.20

0.109 7.58 0.002a

0.34

DM

0.56 (0.11)

0.62 (0.13)

0.57 (0.17)

0.35 (0.21)

0.59 (0.14)

0.58 (0.16)

4.12 0.02 0.216

8.51 0.011 0.362

0,405 0.534 0.026

2.46 0.10 0.141

AD

J

0.58 (0.20)

0.74 (0.03)

0.73 (0.08)

0.51 (0.15)

0.70 (0.12)

0.70 (0.11)

11.73 <0.001

0.439 13.55 0.002

0.467 0.001 0.979

0.00 0.11 0.81

0.70

SE

0.76 (0.22)

0.89 (0.08)

0.87 (0.09)

0.65 (0.29)

0.94 (0.03)

0.92 (0.05)

10.26 <0.001 0.406

12.20 0.003 0.449

1.79 0.201 0.107

1.57 0.22 0.095

SE

F 0.68

(0.11) 0.81 (0.12)

0.80 (0.12)

0.38 (0.26)

0.66 (0.07)

0.64 (0.11)

13.33 <0.001 0.470

15.68 0.001 0.511

0.56 0.466 0.036

1.80 0.18 0.107

M – mean; SD – standard deviation. a Boys (p<0.001) showed superior improvements than girls p=0.007) from the PreT to the PosT.

Empirical Study 1

86

Table 5. Performance for all indexes by students’ skill-level.

Boys Girls Time effect Skill-level x

time interaction F

p η2

PreT-Post comparison

PosT-ReT comparison

PreT M (SD)

PosT M (SD)

ReT M (SD)

PreT M (SD)

PosT M (SD)

ReT M (SD)

F p η2

F p η2

F p η2

GP

0.69 (0.08)

0.73 (0.07)

0.73 (0.09)

0.37 (0.11)

0.73 (0.07)

0.74 (0.06)

58.453 <0.001

0.796 80.90 <0.001

0.844 0.470 0.504

0.030 30.86a <0.001

0.673

GI 218.55

(89.76) 402.36 (126.39)

416.73 (131.14)

137.17 (20.12)

277.83 (137.15)

320.33 (97.69)

34,216 <0.001 0.695

44.03 <0.001 0.746

1.20 0.291 0.074

0.39 0.682 0.25

DM

0.57 (0.08)

0.65 (0.10)

0.55 (0.19)

0.31 (0.21)

0.53 (0.15)

0.61 (0.10)

5.226 0.011 0.258

7.50 0.015 0.33

0.026 0.874 0.002

4.63a 0.018 0.236

AD J 0.65

(0.12) 0.72 (0.06)

0.74 (0.09)

0.37 (0.11)

0.72 (0.12)

0.69 (0.09)

26.492 <0.001

0.638 38.63 <0.001

0.720 0.081 0.780

0.005 10.16a 0.002

0.404

SE

0.86 (0.09)

0.91 (0.06)

0.88 (0.08)

0.45 (0.23)

0.92 (0.09)

0.92 (0.08)

45.218 <0.001 0.758

56.34 <0.001 0.790

1.20 0.289 0.074

34.51a <0.001 0.697

SE F 0.66

(0.13) 0.75 (0.15)

0.74 (0.13)

0.37 (0.28)

0.75 (0.10)

0.72 (0.17)

24.043<0.001 0.616

30.33 <0.001 0.669

0.653 0.432 0.042

9.46a 0.002 0.387

M – mean; SD – standard deviation. a Only lower skill-level students improved (p<0.001 from PreT to PosT to GP, ADJ, SE and SEF; p=0.015 from PosT to ReT to DM).

Empirical Study 1

87

Analysis by skill-level

Table 5 shows the students’ performance by skill level. A significant main

effect for time was found for all variables. Similar to the analysis by sex,

improvements were from PreT to PosT. A number of significant skill-level x time

interactions were found, with the lower skill-level students showing greater

improvements from PreT to PosT for GP, ADJ, SE and SEF, and only from

PreT to the ReT for DM.

Discussion

The present study sought to examine students’ performance

improvements following a hybrid Sport Education-SGA volleyball unit. The

results showed that the Sport Education-SGA was an effective hybrid model in

improving game performance and involvement in volleyball, including the

subcategories of decision-making, adjustment, skill efficiency and skill efficacy,

from the entry to the end of the unit. Results also showed maintenance of these

improvements to the retention test.

Improvements related to students’ sex

In this Sport Education-SGA hybrid model both boys and girls made

improvements from the pre-test to the post-test and maintenance of those

improvements to the retention test in almost all the indexes analysed.

Differences according to students’ sex were only found on the game

involvement index, favoring boys. However, despite the importance of game

involvement to the students’ overall game performance (Memmert and Harvey,

2008), this index might not translate students’ improvements but only how

participants are involved during game play (Pritchard et al., 2008). For example,

during long rallies, game involvement scores will increase, but there is also the

potential that students can show lower game performance scores (i.e. if there

was a long rally, game involvement can have higher scores but students can

also show only inappropriate actions in all other game play indexes).

Empirical Study 1

88

Research focused on Sport Education (Hastie, 1998a, 1998b; Hastie,

Sinelnikov and Guarino, 2009; Pereira, Hastie, Araújo, et al., 2015) and hybrid

models (Mesquita et al., 2012) that considered sex in the analysis of students’

improvements have often produced contradictory results (Araújo et al., 2014).

For example, some studies report superior learning opportunities for boys

(Hastie, 1998a, 1998b; Hastie et al., 2009) while for others, girls are favoured

(Pereira et al., 2015; Mesquita et al., 2012). In the particular case of the study of

Mesquita et al. (2005) with the application of the SGA model, the authors found

that girls achieved greater advantages from the program, particularly in some

tactical and technical skills. In the present study, the learning environment

sustained over the hybrid season seemed effective in minimizing inequities and

power imbalances between boys and girls. Both groups had access to game

roles (statistician, referee, player) on a rotating basis and the formal competition

schedule ensured the same opportunities for boys and girls to practice and

compete. Moreover, the powerful team roles (in this case, the student-coach)

were chosen by the teacher in order to prevent imbalanced power relations

between students based on their sex. In addition, the accountability systems

applied during the learning tasks promoted learning opportunities for all

students, broadly to boys and girls. These included the requirement that the ball

had to be touched by all players (a minimum of 2 tocuhes per team required)

and the promotion of three touches to send the ball to the opponent’s court (for

instance, more points to the team who execute three touches) during the 2vs2

game, as well as that all students should participate in all the functions of the

drill (i.e. server, receiver, setter, attacker, and defender).

Improvements related to students’ skill-level

The results of this study seem to suggest that lower skill-level students

were the primary beneficiaries of the hybrid unit, a finding that corroborates

previous research on Sport Education (e.g. Carlson and Hastie, 1997; Mesquita

et al., 2012; Pereira et al., 2015) as well as SGA (Mesquita et al., 2005). While

the lower skill-level students improved on all parameters of game play, those

who began the season with higher entry levels may have been limited by a

Empirical Study 1

89

ceiling effect. It is positive to note, however, that for some dimensions (e.g. DM,

ADJ, SE and SEF), the final scores of the lower skilled students were matching

the entry scores of the higher skill-level students.

One factor that may have limited the development of the higher skilled

students was the nature of the formal competition. That is, while all students

participated in the same formal competition with the 1vs1 small-sided game, the

higher skill-level students may have needed more challenging contests

(perhaps more time dedicated to the 2vs2) in order to ensure that all students

worked according to what Vygotsky (1978) called their “zone of proximal

development”. As such, future Sport Education-SGA units’ plans should adjust

content and learning task to the different skill-level presented within the

participants of the season, notably through task modification. Examples might

include modification by representation and exaggeration, as well as

differentiated criteria of success within the tasks according to students’ skill

level. More use of the notion of “graded competition” might also be warranted.

Siedentop et al. (2011) describe graded competition as a case where each

team creates sub-teams who then compete against other students of similar

skill levels. In some cases, the games themselves may differ with respect to

court size and/or scoring rules.

Overall, this study has shown that this Sport Education-SGA hybrid unit

had a positive impact on game play performance of both boys and girls.

Nevertheless, this study also showed that lower skill-level students realized

greater gains than those of higher skill during the unit, which reinforces the idea

that future implementations of this hybrid approaches should adjust content and

learning task to different skill-levels. Given the results of the present study,

future Sport Education implementation should move forward to designs that

attend to the individual rhythm of learning without losing the affective and social

goals of this model. As aforementioned, the content and learning tasks

presented within the season should be adjusted according to students’ skill-

level. In this way, it would be possible to provide authentic and rich sport

experiences to all students in the context of physical education (Siedentop,

1994).

Empirical Study 1

90

This study also showed that the use of the retention test was particularly

crucial to a more accurate assessment of all students’ improvements during this

hybrid Sport Education-SGA unit (Haerens and Tallir, 2012; Magill, 2011). This

suggests the need to evaluate students’ learning outcomes beyond the end of

the instructional period. As already stated by (Mesquita et al., 2012: 215)

“teachers should evaluate the impact of the teaching-learning process not just

at the end of the units, but also at a later date, as the time effect may have a

significant influence on learning gains.”

Nevertheless, the results of the present study are limited to inferences

made from a single unit experience of a hybrid model. Research suggests that

skilful game play takes time and the application of more than one unit

consecutively over time might benefit the dynamics of social and instructional

systems within working groups and consequently improve students’ learning

(Araújo et al., 2014; Brunton, 2003; Wallhead and O'Sullivan, 2005). Future

research should therefore analyse the impact of these hybrid instructional

models with a more longitudinal data collection that extends beyond one or two

units.

Future research should also move forward to research designs that attend

to the complexity of teaching and learning processes and the working dynamics

operating within teams (Araújo et al., 2014; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead and

O'Sullivan, 2005). Therefore, research is encouraged to use more qualitative

research designs to examine students’ engagement and the dynamics

operating within these two instructional models or in fact any instructional

models (Pereira et al., 2015). For instance, research has highlighted inequities

related to students’ status (Brock et al., 2009), which should be deeply analysed

in order to guide future hybrid implementations. Among these research designs,

action-research and case studies are two possible ways to provide a richer

description of model-based instruction.

Empirical Study 1

91

Conclusions

The results of the present study strongly reinforce the value of

incorporating instructional models that provide a more purposeful didactical

framework to Sport Education, in particular respect to the tasks and the content

to be taught. Only with these alliances between instructional models with

different frameworks it would be possible to achieve the learning outcomes

without losing the affective and social goals of Sport Education that are so

valued by students. In particular, both boys and girls improved in all the game

play dimensions from the beginning to the end of the season. Notwithstanding,

when students’ skill-level was considered, only lower skill-level students made

significant improvements, which suggests that future implementation should

consider students’ different skill-levels in the developing of content within the

season.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Cláudio Farias and Professor José Maia for

their assistance with the preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and

Technology (FCT) / POPH / QREN / European Social Fund [grant number

SFRH/BD/72361/2010].

References

Alexander K, Taggart A and Thorpe S (1996) A spring in their steps?

Possibilities for professional renewal through sport education in Australian

schools. Sport, Education and Society 1(1): 23-46.

Empirical Study 1

92

Araújo R, Mesquita I and Hastie PA (2014) Review of the status of learning in

research on sport education: Future research and practice. Journal of

Sports Science and Medicine 13(4): 846-858.

Atkinson G and Nevill A (1998) Statistical methods for assessing measurement

error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sport Medicine

26(4): 217-238.

Baumgartner TA and Jackson AS (1995) Measurement for Evaluation in

Physical Education and Exercise Science. Dubuque, IA: Brown &

Benchmark.

Brock S, Rovegno I and Oliver K (2009) The influence of student status on

student interactions and experiences during a sport education unit.

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14(4): 355-375.

Brunton J (2003) Changing hierarchies of power in physical education using

sport education. European Physical Education Review 9(3): 267-284.

Carlson T and Hastie PA (1997) The student social system within sport

education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 16(2): 176-195.

Haerens L and Tallir I (2012) Experimental research methods in physical

education and sports. In: Armour K and Macdonald D (eds) Research

Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport. London: Routledge,

pp.149-162.

Harvey S and Jarret K (2014) A review of the game-centred approaches to

teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and Sport

Pedagogy 19(1): 278-300.

Hastie PA (1998a) The participation and perceptions of girls within a unit of

sport education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17(2): 157-171.

Hastie PA (1998b) Skill and tactical development during a sport education

season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69(4): 368-379.

Hastie PA and Casey A (2014) Fidelity in models-based practice research in

sport pedagogy: a guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in


Empirical Study 1

93

Hastie PA and Curtner-Smith MD (2006) Influence of a hybrid Sport Education -

Teaching Games for Understanding unit on one teacher and his students.

Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 11(1): 1-27.

Hastie PA, Calderón A, Rolim R, et al. (2013) The development of skill and

knowledge during a sport education season of track and field athletics.

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 84(3): 336-344.

Hastie PA, Martinez de Ojeda D and Calderón A (2011) A review of research on

sport education: 2004 to the present. Physical Education and Sport

Pedagogy 16(2): 103-132.

Hastie PA, Sinelnikov O and Guarino AJ (2009) The development of skill and

tactical competencies during a season of badminton. European Journal of

Sport Science 9(3): 133-140.

Magill RA (2011) Motor learning and control: Concepts and Applications. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Memmert D and Harvey S (2008) The Game Performance Assessment

Instrument (GPAI): Some concerns and solutions for further development.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 27(2): 220-240.

Mesquita I, Farias C and Hastie PA (2012) The impact of a hybrid Sport


decision making, skill execution and overall game performance. European

Physical Education Review 18(2): 205-219.

Mesquita I, Graça A, Gomes AR, et al. (2005) Examining the impact of a step

game approach to teaching volleyball on student tactical decision making

and skill execution during game play. Journal of Human Movement Studies

48: 469-492.

Metzler MW (2011) Instructional Models for Physical Education. Scottsdale,

Arizona: Holcomb Hathaway, Publishers, Inc.

Mitchell S, Oslin J and Griffin I (2006) Teaching Sport Concepts and Skills: A

Tactical Games Approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Oslin J, Mitchell S and Griffin L (1998) The Game Performance Assessment

Instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation. Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education 17(2): 231-243.

Empirical Study 1

94

Pereira F, Graça A, Blomqvist M, et al. (2011) Instructional approaches in youth

volleyball training settings according to player's age and gender.

International Journal of Sport Psychology 42(3): 227-244.

Pereira J, Hastie P, Araújo R, et al. (2015) A Comparative Study of Students’

Track and Field Technical Performance in Sport Education and in a Direct

Instruction approach. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 14(1): 118-

127.

Pritchard T, Hawkins A, Wiegand R, et al. (2008) Effects of two instructional

approaches on skill development, knowledge, and game performance.

Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 12(4): 219-236.

Pritchard T, McCollum S, Sundal J et al. (2014) Effect of the Sport Education

Tactical Model on Coeducational and Single Gender Game Performance.

The Physical Educator 71(1): 132-154.

Siedentop D (1994) Sport Education: Quality PE through Positive Sport

Experiences. Champaingn, IL: Human Kinetics.

Siedentop D, Hastie P and V der Mars H (2011) Complete Guide To Sport

Education. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Tabachnick BG and Fidell LS (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston:

Pearson.

Thorpe R, Bunker D and Almond L (1984) A change in focus for the teaching of

games. In Pierón M and Graham C (eds.) Sport Pedagogy: Olympic

Scientific Congress. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp.163-169.

van der Mars H (1989) Observer Reliability: Issues and Procedures. In P. Darst,

D. Zakrajsek and V. Mancini (Eds.), Analysing Physical Education and

Sport Education. Champaign: Human Kinectics, pp. 53-79.

Vygotsky L (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wallhead T and O'Sullivan M (2005) Sport education: Physical education for the

new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 10(2): 181-210.

Empirical Study 2 _________________________________________________

The instructional evolution of the student-coach in a combined use of

Sport Education and Step-Game-Approach

Rui Araújo 1, Isabel Mesquita 1, and Peter A. Hastie 2 1 Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, CIFI2D,


Submitted: Journal of Teaching in Physical Education

Empirical Study 2

97

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the instructional weaknesses of

student-coaches and the impact of specific student-coaches’ preparation

protocols on their instructional evolution throughout three hybrid Sport

Education-SGA seasons. The results highlighted the efficacy of the protocols

implemented during the second and third units and gives insights for the

importance of specific formats for student-coaches’ instructional preparation.

Given the instructional difficulties encountered in the first season (task

presentation, error diagnosis, feedback and task modification) a protocol for

student-coaches instructional preparation was implemented during the second

season. Despite student-coaches’ instructional improvements during this

second season, they still showed some remaining instructional difficulties.

Therefore a second protocol to the preparation of these students with the use of

video watching and planning sheets was developed during the extracurricular of

the third unit. Both protocols allowed a complete transfer of the instructional

responsibility from the teacher to the student-coaches.

Introduction

Model-based practice has been considered the “white hope” (Casey,

2014, p. 19) and the “wave to the future” (Dyson, Griffin & Hastie, 2004, p. 237)

to replace the traditional teacher-centred practice in Physical Education

(Metzler, 2011). Sport Education is regarded as one of the innovative sport-

based pedagogical models, and it was designed to provide authentic and

educationally rich sport experiences in the context of Physical Education

(Siedentop, Hastie & Van der Mars, 2011). The overriding goals of Sport

Education are the development of competent, literate and enthusiastic sports

players (Siedentop et al. 2011), and reviews of research (Araújo, Mesquita &

Hastie, 2014; Hastie, 2012; Hastie, Martínez de Ojeda, & Calderón, 2011;

Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005) have reported varying degrees of

accomplishment of these goals. Perhaps the most up to date status on Sport

Empirical Study 2

98

Education research comes from Hastie (2012, p. 10) who suggests “evidence

for competency is ‘burgeoning and developing’, support for literacy is

‘emerging’, and that enthusiastic responses by students have been ‘significantly

substantiated’”.

Central to the concept of Sport Education is the persisting team, and

within this team, the allocation of students to roles other than player. Examples

within teams include coach, equipment manager, or fitness leader, while those

within matches include roles as referees, scorekeepers and statisticians.

Studies in Sport Education that have specifically examined role involvement

report that students enjoy taking administrative roles and achieve high levels of

congruent behaviours when officiating games (Hastie, 1996; Hastie &

Sinelnikov, 2006; Layne & Hastie, 2014).

Apart from officiating, the other central role within Sport Education that is

different from more traditional Physical Education is the student-coach. This

player is expected to provide general team leadership, direct skill and strategy

practice, and make decisions about team line-ups (Siedentop et al., 2011).

However, with the exception of the study of Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2007),

there has been no examination of student-coaches’ instructional competence

and performance within peer-assisted tasks. It is therefore not surprising that

several authors have called for the analysis of student-coach leadership skills

and instructional competence within the peer-assisted tasks in Sport Education

(Hastie, 2000; Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005). This is

particularly relevant given Wallhead and O’Sullivan’s finding of student-coaches’

inability to elaborate content through appropriate demonstration, error diagnosis

and task modification. In that study, these limitations lead to the learning of only

lower level solutions to offensive tag rugby problems, rather the development of

student content knowledge and performance of higher order content.

Nevertheless, while the Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2007) study was able

to identify the student-coaches’ instructional difficulties, it was also limited in a

number of ways. In particular, Wallhead and O’Sullivan followed only one team

over the course of a single season of 15 lessons. If we accept the notion that

“skilful game play takes time” (Rink, French & Graham 1996, p. 494), then it

Empirical Study 2

99

could be equally suggested that skilful games teaching take time. By

consequence, the application of more than one season may be necessary in

order to truly appreciate the dynamics of any intervention into the social and

instructional systems that occur when students work in persisting teams

(Brunton, 2003). This is particularly the case given that the complexity of task

organization within Sport Education. For example, teachers and coaches are

required to attend to many managerial roles such as organizing team and class

tasks, establishing formal competition protocols, and allocating students to sub

teams, among others.

Given the central place of the student coach within Sport Education

research, and given the paucity of research on student-coaches, the purpose of

the present study was to assess the effectiveness of specific coach training

protocols on student-coaches’ instructional effectiveness. That is, we sought to

identify the difficulties encountered by student-coaches during peer-assisted

tasks and then evaluate the interventions that were put in place across three

Sport Education seasons designed to address those difficulties. Siedentop

(1995) was the first to suggest that “a void exists in how to identify, teach, and

provide practice for the leadership skills necessary for successful coaching

within the tasks of Sport Education (Siedentop, 1995, p. 22).

Methods

Participants

At the commencement of the study the participants consisted of 21

students (11 boys and 10 girls, average age = 12.0) from one Physical

Education class of a school in the north of Portugal. The class met twice a

week, with one lesson scheduled for 45 minutes and the other for 90 minutes.

The teacher who presented the three seasons had more than 20 years of

teaching experience, and one year of applying both Sport Education and SGA

prior to this study. For all students however, this was their first experience with

the model. The ethical committee of the authors’ university approved the

research protocol. To guarantee students’ anonymity and to distinguish their

Empirical Study 2

100

opinions, all the participants were provided with pseudonymous: the student-

coaches were Afonso, Cláudio and Tiago; and peer-participants were Ana,

Alexandre, Cristiana, Diana, Isabel, Mário, Patrícia, and Rúben.

Design of the study

This study followed a longitudinal design that included three hybrid Sport

Education and Step-Game-Approach (SGA) volleyball seasons and two

protocols of student-coaches’ preparation over three years. The study started

when students were in the seventh-grade and ended during their ninth-grade

year. Given that the specificity of content can influence the evolution of student-

coaches’ instructional skills, the same sport was used across the three years

(i.e. volleyball). The students remained in the same class throughout the entire

study and despite some minor player changes from one season to the next, the

makeup of the teams and student-coaches maintained consistent throughout

the entire study. In the time between the three seasons, the Physical Education

lessons were taught not using Sport Education or SGA as models, and did not

involve volleyball as content. The three seasons lasted between 20 and 25

lessons, and contained all Sport Education characteristics (Siedentop et al.,

2011) (i.e. seasons, persisting teams, formal competition, record keeping,

festivity and a culminating event), while the specific content and learning tasks

followed the SGA model (Mesquita, Graça, Gomes & Cruz, 2005). Table 1

provides a complete outline of the season plans for each of the three seasons.

The Sport Education features. All of the seasons were divided into

phases of skill and tactical development, non-consequential practice matches,

and formal competition. The purpose of the early lessons was to address the

educational goals and procedures embedded in Sport Education, and students’

allocation into mixed-ability teams (according to pre-unit assessments of the

students). In the two first seasons students were allocated on four teams and in

only three in the third season. The roles taken within each team were players,

student-coaches, equipment managers, statisticians and referees. The second

phase of the season was dedicated to within-team practices, learning about

Empirical Study 2

101

officiating responsibilities, and scrimmage game play and formal competition. In

the final phase of the season a culminating event was organized.

The SGA features. During the first season, the first step game was

applied (Mesquita et al., 2005). The main goal was for students to learn the

simplest game form (1vs1). Two main tactical skills, namely intervention, and

opposition and two technical skills, namely overhead pass and underhand serve

were taught. Nevertheless, given the simplicity of the 1vs1 game, the 2vs2 was

also included in the end of this season without requiring tactical demands

related with the teammate or the opposite team. The second and third seasons

were dedicated to the second step of SGA, namely to cooperate with the in the

2vs2 game teammate and forearm pass. The three seasons comprehended

task modification by representation and exaggeration, as well as all types of

instructional tasks (acquisition, structuring and adaptation) were used.

Protocols of student-coaches preparation. The purpose of the first Sport

Education season was to act as a baseline in which data were collected to

identify any instructional limitations of the student-coaches. Based on those

limitations, a protocol for student-coach preparation was developed. The impact

of this protocol was examined throughout the second season, in which the focus

was on both improvements in effectiveness as well as possible remaining

instructional difficulties. A second (and somewhat different) protocol for student-

coaches’ preparation was subsequently developed for implementation during

the third season.

Empirical Study 2

102

Table 1. Unit plans for the three Sport Education-SGA seasons First unit Second unit Third unit Lesson 1 and 2 Explanation of the model and competition format Allocation of teams and individual roles Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass, 1vs1 Within-team practice Lesson 3 - 6 Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass, 1vs1 (displacement and position in court) Within-team practice Lesson 7 - 10 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass and 1vs1 (opposition) Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring) Lesson 11- 16 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, underhand serve and 1vs1 (opposition) Lesson planned by the teacher and students had the opportunity to plan some learning-tasks Within-team practice and role practice Formal competition: 1vs1 Lesson 17-24 Formal Competition: 1vs1 and 2vs2 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, 1vs1, and 2vs2 Lesson planned by the teacher with students having the opportunity

Lesson 1 Explanation of the competition format and handbooks Allocation of teams Student-directed instruction: warm-up Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass and 2vs2 (position in court and verbal communication) Lesson 2 and 3 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass and 2vs2 (approach to the net by the setter) Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring) Lesson 4-6 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass (non-linear trajectory) and 2vs2 Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 7-16 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass (non-linear trajectory) and 2vs2 Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 13-16 Formal Competition: 2vs2 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass (non-linear trajectory) and 2vs2 Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 17-19 Formal Competition: 2vs2

Lesson 1 Explanation of the competition format and handbooks Allocation of teams Friendly competition: 2vs2 Lesson 2 - 4 Student-direct instruction: warm-up, 2vs2 game and overhead pass in a linear trajectory Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring) Formal competition: 2vs2 with specific rules Statistics and refereeing (ball in/out and permission to serve) Lesson 5 - 8 Student-direct instruction: warm-up, overhead pass in a non-linear trajectory, verbal communication and different functions in 2vs2 Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring) Formal competition: 2vs2 with specific rules to promote verbal communication Statistics and refereeing (ball in/out and permission to serve) Lesson 9 and 11 Student-direct instruction: warm-up, transition and opposition Within-team practice and role practice Formal competition: 2vs2 with specific rules to promote the approach of the setter to the net in the 2nd touch Statistics and refereeing (more than one touch for player and three for team) Lesson 12 - 14 Student-direct instruction: warm-up and forearm pass Within-team practice and role practice (student-directed monitoring) Formal competition: 2vs2 with specific rules to promote opposition Statistics and refereeing (all the rules) Lesson 15 and 21

Empirical Study 2

103

to plan some learning-tasks Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 25 Culminating event

Student-coaches and their teams planned content and learning tasks to the lesson Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 20 Culminating event

Student-coaches and their teams planned content and learning tasks to the lesson Within-team practice and role practice (student-directed monitoring) Formal competition: 2vs2 with larger courts Statistics and refereeing Lesson 22 Culminating event

Data collection

In order to analyse the instructional dynamics during peer-assisted tasks

and the perceptions of all the participants in regard to student-coaches’

performance, data from multiple sources were collected. These included: (a)

videotape observations of all lessons, (b) field notes, and (c) pre-lesson

interviews with the student-coaches.

To record all lesson and meetings events, a portable video camera

situated in an unobtrusive way in the corner of the gymnasium was mounted on

a tripod. In addition, the three student-coaches wore a wireless microphone.

This allowed for capturing the visible and audible actions and interactions of all

the participants of the season (Pink, 2007). In particular, the use of a

microphone gave better access to the instructional dynamics between the

student-coaches, peer-participants and the teacher.

Along with videotape observation, the first author took field notes during

each lesson in order to record his beliefs, perceptions and personal experiences

about each lesson. These field notes included all items recommended by

Lofland (2003) such as: (a) information collected during the lesson; (b)

remembered information, since not all the information could be written during

lessons; and (c) feelings and impressions of the researcher at the observation

moment. In addition, a detailed description of the setting, the students’

responses to various events taking place during the lesson, as well as the

student-coaches’ interactions with their teammates (Lofland, 2003) were also

included. Direct quotations were noted and observer comments were placed in

the margin relative to feelings, hunches and initial interpretations. Informal

Empirical Study 2

104

conversations with both the teacher and students were also used to seek further

reactions to the lesson and were added to the field notes.

Consistent with the procedures used by Wallhead and O’Sullivan (2007),

in order to collect information of the learning objectives of for the upcoming

lesson and to clarify student-coaches’ didactical intent for the upcoming lesson,

pre-lesson interviews were realized. Sample questions included: “Which content

will be taught in the upcoming lesson?” “What tasks will be organized during the

lesson?” “What are the main objectives of each of the practices you are going to

coach today?” “How do you think your teammates will perform during the

lesson?” and “Do you foresee any problems with any of your teammates today?

Although the order of questions varied, since they were built on the participants’

responses, efforts were made to guarantee they were present in a similar

sequence (Irwin, Hanto & Kerwin, 2004). Furthermore, prompts and follow-up

questions were used to obtain further clarification of responses (Patton, 2002).

Data analysis

Both videotapes and interviews were transcribed verbatim and labelled

(title, date, time and lesson number), in order to ensure a complete and

accurate record of the data obtained. Additionally, field notes were put into the

file for the appropriate day. These two processes insured an accurate account

of the sequence of events and quick retrieval of specific occurrences or lessons.

In order to reflect thoughts and interpretations of the researchers this

transcripts were read several times and notes were placed in the margins

(Smith & Osborn, 2003). In a next phase of analysis, the data were subject to

inductive examination through a process of thematic analysis (Patton, 2002).

The themes generated were not identified in terms of frequency of occurrence,

but mostly considering whether they captured important insights in relation to

the aims of the study. Thus, the general analysis undertaken was largely

inductive in nature. By combining a constant comparative analysis with a line-

by-line examination of common words, phrases meanings and ways of thinking

withdrawn from the multiple sources used, initial codes were identified. In the

following phase (i.e., focusing phase) units of information with similar meanings

Empirical Study 2

105

were grouped into more comprehensive themes, which allowed organization

and interpretation of the unstructured data (Tesch, 1990). In order to search for

commonalities and uniqueness according to the meanings by which they were

categorized, the content of these themes was then re-examined carefully

(Tesch, 1990). Representative cases of student-coaches’ instructional

performance obtained from lesson observations, interviews and field notes were

selected, and are presented in the results to highlight the research team point of

view. Nevertheless, these were not the only cases and these behaviours were

systematic observed over the study.

Results

Season 1 – providing a baseline of student-coaches instructional performance

The purpose of the first season was to provide a baseline of student-

coach instructional performance from which it was possible to design

appropriate instructional interventions in seasons two and three. Three themes

portrayed the challenges faced by the student-coaches during this first volleyball

season: (i) struggles in organizing and presenting tasks, (ii) lack of error

diagnosis and feedback, and (iii) no evidence of task modification.

Struggles in organizing and presenting tasks. The three student-coaches

appeared to experience several difficulties in terms of task presentation, during

all lessons of the season. More specifically, they failed to explain some

important issues like where students should stand, how long they should stand,

how long they should practice, what each student should be doing, and the

goals and key points of the task. As a result, throughout the season the teacher

was often forced to intervene when a new task was present. The following

excerpt of lesson observations supports this idea:

During the entire lesson, Afonso often seemed to not understand what tasks were supposed to do with his team. Every time Afonso presented a new task [acquisition or adaptation tasks] he was often forced to ask for the teacher’s help as he appeared to be unsure of exactly what the teacher expected him to do.

Empirical Study 2

106

(Field notes, lesson 7)

Lack of error diagnosis and feedback. Throughout the season, the three

student-coaches struggled to identify the technical and tactical elements of

volleyball content, even in the simplest tasks (e.g. acquisition tasks). As a

consequence, they were unable to identify performance errors in teammates.

Several lesson observations throughout the season showed occasions during

peer-assisted tasks where the three student-coaches should have intervened

and given feedback but failed to do so.

In this simple acquisition task, none of the members of Tiago’s team are appropriately positioning their bodies in order to send the ball where they need to in this simple acquisition task. However, Tiago did not provided feedback. (Field notes, lesson 10).

When feedback was given it had a more motivational focus (e.g., general

praise) or was related to the organizational features of the task. Moreover, when

the feedback was related to the content, it was often wrong or not congruent with

task demands. The intervention of Cláudio during lesson 13 clearly exemplifies

this difficulty:

Patrícia is not having success in sending the ball over the net with the underhand serve [n.r. simple acquisition task, in which one student is serving and the other is grabbing the ball in the other court]. While the appropriate feedback would have been to encourage her to transfer her body weight to the forward foot, Cláudio is providing feedback about hand position instead. (Field notes, lesson 13)

No evidence of task modification. Throughout the season, there was no

evidence of the student-coaches making changes to the tasks when teammates

were experiencing difficulties. These changes could include allow teammates to

move close to the net when serving, more than one touch per player, to grab the

ball instead of overhead pass, etc. The following excerpt exemplifies the

absence of task modification:

Empirical Study 2

107

The three teams were performing the same drill, specifically designed to practice the overhead pass in a non-linear trajectory [n.r. acquisition task]. All students were experiencing difficulties in sustaining the ball and the three student-coaches did not facilitate the task (perhaps by allowing more than one contact per player). (Field notes, lesson 17)

Season 2 – Fading instructional responsibility from the teacher to the student-

coaches

Student-coaches’ preparation. The difficulties experienced by the student-

coaches during the first season reinforced the need to provide them with

specific instructional preparation during the second season in order to provide

basic instructional skills (such as, organization of the tasks, basic feedback and

task modification). This preparation included: (i) modelling teacher’s

intervention, (ii) a pre-lesson meeting with the student coaches, and (iii) the

coaches’ corner strategy. Table 2 outlines the student-coaches’ instructional

preparation throughout the season.

Empirical Study 2

108

Table 2. Student-coaches’ preparation during the second season Instructional skills improved How they were developed

Content knowledge • Devolution of rules and technical

and tactical basic knowledge of the game form to be taught.

Task presentation • Goals orientation of the task to

be performed. • Organizational arrangements of

the task: space, time, task structure and students’ functions.

Feedback • Critical components of technical

and tactical skills required for each of the upcoming tasks.

• Recognition of the most common errors during the task.

Task modification • Possible task modifications when

needed: changing the dimensions of the court, the technical skill to be used, number of players per group, etc.

Less

ons

1-6

Teachers’ modelling. This was accomplished by student-coaches modelling teacher’s instructional intervention during the lesson. The teacher provided information of the task to the whole class (such as task structure and key points of the task) before student-coaches organize the tasks with their teammates. Additionally, together with the teacher student-coaches shared the monitoring of teammates’ performance during learning tasks.

Less

ons

7-20

Teacher’s pre-lesson meeting. The teacher transmit and demonstrated the content to be taught and the learning tasks to be organized on the upcoming lesson by the use of diagrams and handbooks; highlighted the key points in which student-coaches should be focused during task monitoring and exemplified possible task modifications. Coaches’ corner. Every time the teacher presented new content, a new task or a modification to the on-going task he gathered the student-coaches and provided them with the key points of the tasks and content to be taught while the rest of the students continued to participate in the task.

Providing student-coaches with basic instructional skills. During the first six

lessons of the season, the teacher modelled a number of instructional skills for

the student-coaches. First, he provided information about the task to the whole

class (such as task structure and key points) and the student-coaches only then

organized the tasks with their teammates.

The teams were practising the attack organization on a 2vs2 side-out structure. The teacher stopped all the teams and presented a new task, namely a 2vs2 within-team practice game. He also remembered the students about the rules and key points of the game. After the task presentation, teams immediately started the intended task. (Field notes, lesson 1)

In addition, the responsibility for monitoring performance during learning

tasks was shared by the teacher and the student-coaches. This served to

increase student-coaches’ awareness when they were providing feedback.

Empirical Study 2

109

Alexandre was not having success in the underhand serve, since he was advancing the wrong foot. Afonso did not intervened. The teacher called Alexandre and provided him a corrective feedback. In the following attempt Alexandre also did not advance the correct foot. Nevertheless, Afonso immediately provided feedback. Alexandre tried again and proper executed the serve (Field notes, lesson 1)

Pre-lesson meeting. From lessons seven onwards student-coaches were

progressively called upon to organize and present tasks to their teammates. In

order to better release the instructional responsibility from the teacher to the

student-coaches, a pre-lesson meeting with the student coaches was included.

There, the teacher informed the student-coaches about the organization of the

lesson, the key points which they should focus on during task monitoring, as

well as potential task modifications. The key learning tools used by the teacher

were activity diagrams and handbooks. This meeting was held in the

gymnasium immediately before each lesson with peer-assisted tasks and were

between 5 and 10 minutes in length. The following extract from one meeting is

typical of these used:

Teacher: “[…] You are going to organize a 2vs2 game without opposition with your teammates. This drill will count to our competition […]” Cláudio: “Do we need to count the number of times we touch the ball?” Teacher: “No… You need to count the number of times the ball crosses the net after 3 touches. If you only perform 2 touches per team it will not count but it will also not return to zero [the teacher draws a diagram showing the organization of the task].” Tiago: “But do we need to serve?” Teacher: “No… If anyone has difficulty to sustain the ball, just grab it and continue the drill.” (Teacher’s meeting with the student-coaches, lesson 11)

Coaches’ corner. During this period of the season, the teacher also began

to use the coaches’ corner strategy. Every time the teacher presented a new

content, or a task modification to the on-going task, he gathered the student-

coaches and provided them with the key points of the tasks and content to be

taught while the rest of the students continued to practice. Moreover, the

Empirical Study 2

110

student-coaches had the opportunity to ask the teacher any questions they

might have related to the task. The following excerpt from one coaches’ corner

observation exemplifies this strategy:

All students were practising in their teams. Before the teacher began the competition, he wanted to remind student-coaches the key points and rules of the game. He therefore called the student-coaches to a corner of the gymnasium. Teacher: “Next, game 2vs2 with opposition. During this game, do not forget to remind your teammates about the rules of the game. When do you rotate in the serve?” Tiago: “When we win the serve.” Afonso: “But, we only serve a maximum of two serves and then we rotate?” Teacher: “Yes. More rules: one touch per players and three per team. Do not forget to communicate and approach the net. But now, you need to inform your teammates to execute the forearm pass when the trajectory is low and overhead pass when the trajectory is high. Ok? Let’s go!” (Field notes and video observation, lesson 9)

The evolution of student-coaches instructional performance

Concerning to the outcome of the pre-lesson meetings, the student-

coaches showed improved understanding of the structure of each task of the

lesson. Consequently, they started to organize simple tasks (e.g., acquisition

tasks) with their teammates by communicating the general organization of the

task, general goals (i.e. technical and basic tactical skills) and teammates’

functions within the task. An extract from the pre-lesson interview and

subsequent video observation provides a representative example of Afonso’s

improved understanding of task structure and the presentation of it to his

teammates:

Researcher: “What will you do with your teammates during today’s lesson?” Afonso: “[…] We will have a 2vs2 situation without opposition [...] I will pay attention to the 3 touches per team, to the verbal communication and to the movement to the net before the set”. (Afonso, pre-lesson interview, lesson 9)

Empirical Study 2

111

Immediately after the teacher began the lesson, Afonso gathered his teammates and presented the task to them. Afonso: “We are going to play a 2vs2 game without opposition. Understood? So… Lets’ begin! Hurry up!” (Field notes and video-observation, lesson 9)

The pre-lesson meeting appeared to help student-coaches in developing

more knowledge regarding the technical and basic tactical skills (e.g.,

communicate and approach the net to set) of the content being taught. The

following excerpt show that Afonso knew exactly the goals of the tasks and the

key points in which he would be focused on:

Researcher: “[…] What are the goals and tasks for today’s lesson?” Afonso: “[…] One player is serving and other two receiving. After the serve they need to communicate and the non-receiver must approach the net to set.” Researcher: “As a coach, what will you be focused on?” Afonso: “I want them to execute three touches, to communicate when they will receive the ball and approach the net to set.” (Afonso, pre-lesson interview, lesson 9)

The student-coaches were also seen to improve their ability to diagnose

errors and provide appropriate feedback regarding those technical and basic

tactical skills during simple tasks (i.e. acquisition tasks). This argument is

supported by the observation of increased cases where they were able to

provide congruent feedback:

In this acquisition task, students only had to communicate and touch the ball after an easy serve. When Diana did not play the ball in her responsibility zone, her coach stopped the play and said: “Diana all this space of the court is yours… This entire rectangle of the court is your responsibility. You only move to the net to set if your teammate is about to receive the ball.” (Field notes and video observation, lesson 12)

Another example of the student-coaches’ instructional improvement was

the introduction of task modifications, but only by representation (i.e. when

teammates were having difficulties with technical issues or the actual rules of

the small-sided game) and only on acquisition tasks.

Empirical Study 2

112

Ana was having difficulties in sustain the ball in a non-linear trajectory. Tiago allowed her to execute more than two touches if necessary until her body was placed to the target. (Field notes, lesson 11)

The last indicator that showed the student-coaches’ instructional improvements

was the release of instructional responsibility from the teacher to the student-

coaches. Taking into account student-coaches improvements on task

presentation, feedback and task modification the teacher did only intervene: (i)

in response to critical incidents (e.g., sporadic disciplinary incidents); (ii) lack or

inadequate feedback; and (iii) when he wanted to introduce new or more

complex content).

The teacher spent the majority of the lesson observing and praising students’ effort. Teacher’s intervention was only needed to organize the coaches’ corners (when he needed to change the task), answering student-coaches doubts regarding the organization of the competition matches (time and sub teams) and providing feedback when student-coaches were not able to diagnose some complex content on game-like tasks. (Field notes, lesson 18)

Remaining instructional difficulties

Despite the several improvements observed, the student-coaches still

displayed some instructional limitations throughout the season. In particular,

they often failed to specify the critical components of the tasks (i.e., key aspects

related to the goals of the task) and there were almost no examples of the use

of demonstration. The following example highlighted the lack of these two

aspects during task presentation.

In order to develop verbal communication in a structuring task, despite Tiago has given information to his teammates regarding the organization of the task, they seemed confused with his presentation. He did not use demonstration and did not specify the critical components of the task. Indeed, during the majority of the time allocated for this task, teammates were always with doubts regarding task structure. (Field notes, lesson 17)

Empirical Study 2

113

Beyond that, they only provided feedback on acquisition tasks and

regarding basic tactical skills. In more complex tasks (such as structuring and

adaptation tasks) or more complex tactical content (for instance, opposition), the

feedback for the most part was not related to the goal of the task.

The goal of this game-like task (2vs2 game without opposition) was to sustain the ball, with the first touch directed to the net and a movement from the non-receiving player to the net before the set. However, Afonso continued to reinforce the need of using three contacts on the ball. (Field notes, lesson 11)

Further, in all type of tasks this feedback followed a prescriptive and

evaluative profile, with questioning rarely being used. The following two

examples from Afonso’s performance during lesson 11 provide support for this

contention:

Afonso: “Alexandre you have to set the ball higher… Set higher! Set higher! […] Stop Alexandre. I will toss the ball to you and you will set the ball higher… Higher! Higher!” (Afonso, video observation, lesson 11)

Student-coaches also failed to modify the task when it was necessary to

focused teammates’ attention on a key aspect of technical or tactical content

(i.e., modification by exaggeration) even in simple acquisition tasks:

During one 2vs2 side-out drill, the players were having success in sustaining the ball but without accomplishing the goal of the drill (approach to the net). Cláudio could focus students’ attention on this tactical skill by giving extra points every time they approached the net. (Field notes, lesson 17)

Season 3 – Complete transfer of the instructional responsibility to the student-

coaches

Student-coaches’ preparation

Empirical Study 2

114

In order to transfer all in-class responsibility from the teacher to the

student-coaches, it was necessary to give them instructional preparation related

to: (i) the use of demonstration and the definition of the critical components of

the task during task presentation; (ii) the provision of feedback on more complex

learning tasks (i.e., structuring and adaptation tasks) and content (more

complex tactical skills, such as opposition); (iii) the use of questioning; and (iv)

the use of task modification by representation.

Therefore, the teacher initiated an extracurricular meeting once a week.

These meetings, which lasted between 28 and 70 minutes, took place in a

classroom outside of the gymnasium and were held in the begging of the week,

before lessons with peer-assisted tasks.

There, the teacher showed student-coaches sample video clips of their

teaching in order to make them analyse all the learning tasks of the previous

lesson, and then debate. In the first phase of the student-coaches’ preparation

(until lesson 10), the teacher focused student-coaches attention on the

aforementioned aspects of their instruction. From the middle of the season the

teacher provided questions, hints and cues based on videos, in order to

increase the student-coaches’ ability to solve problems they could face during

peer-assisted tasks.

Planning sheets were the other instructional strategy implemented by the

teacher during these extracurricular meetings, which could then be used by the

student-coaches during the lesson. During the early lessons of the season,

these planning sheets outlined the task structure, content to be taught, key

points, common errors, as well as examples of possible feedback and task

modification. Later, its elaboration elicited the debate between the three student-

coaches and the teacher regarding what student coaches thought it was

necessary to practise with their teams, as at this time the student-coaches took

full responsibility for practise planning. Full details of these extracurricular

meetings are provided in Table 3.

Empirical Study 2

115

Table 3. Student-coaches’ preparation during the third season Le

sson

2-1

0

Mee

tings

1-4

In the first part of the meeting, the teacher provided feedback to coaches through the use of videos from previous lessons. The focus was on the students’ instructional skill performance during the learning tasks:

• Improving student-coaches’ task presentation: • How to sequence the presentation: understand the task goals after task organization. • Using a clear and objective language: use demonstration, avoid digressions and ambiguous phrases, detailed and redundant information. • Provide critical components or/and criteria of success to each of the task for the upcoming lesson. • Improve feedback in tasks with more tactical demands. • The use of questioning. • Presented practice situations in which the feedback was insufficient, and encouraged the student-coaches to modify the task.

In the second part, the teacher used the planning sheets to explain the content and learning tasks used in the following lessons. Sometimes he also demonstrated the task or the content. Discussion with the teacher guidance of the critical components and most frequent errors of each of the tasks planned for the upcoming lesson.

Less

on 1

1-22

Mee

tings

5-7

In the first part, the teacher presented videos of SC’s instructional performance and asked students to reflect about their performance. In the second part, the teacher presented videos of each team playing, and asked student coaches to then describe how they would structure their future practice sessions. This was accomplished by the elaboration of planning sheets.

Student-coaches’ instructional performance

The interventions introduced during this third season seemed particularly

effective in improving student-coaches’ task presentation. In particular, the three

student-coaches began to use demonstration, and also provided the critical

components for successful completion of the tasks. The following excerpts

exemplify how task presentation was developed during the protocol of this third

season, and the subsequent improvement of student-coaches during the lesson:

The teacher exposed some key issues of task presentation: place the teammates in their places, explain and demonstrate the task, define the key points of the task and check teammates’ understanding. (Field notes, extracurricular meeting, before lesson 5) As it happened until this lesson, the student-coaches were always using their planning sheets. For instance, before the presentation of the tasks of this lesson, the three student-coaches consulted their planning sheets to check the structure and the key points of the task. (Field notes, lesson 12)

Empirical Study 2

116

In this butterfly [n.r. complex adaptation drill with opposition] Tiago has provided a detailed explanation of the tasks to his teammates, including demonstration and the critical components of the task that were developed during the last meeting. Tiago: “Ok. In the next drill I want you to do two things: communicate with your teammate by saying “mine” and move to the net if your teammate says ‘mine’. Don’t worry we can do this. Our field is this. Rúben stays here, Cristiana here and Isabel there with ball. So, Isabel serves, Cristiana receives and says ‘mine’, Rúben moves to the net, sets the ball and Cristiana execute the attack to the other side and tries to score. Then, you change places: Pedro serves, Tatiana goes behind Pedro and Isabel comes to receive. Let’s do one time so everyone can understand [and demonstrates the drill].” (Field notes and video observation, lesson 9).

Concerning the provision of feedback, all three student-coaches showed to

be able to diagnose errors and to provide proper feedback focused on the

critical components of the task in structuring and adaptation tasks, and in the

presence of more complex tactical content (such as, opposition):

The extracurricular meeting previous to this lesson was focused on student-coaches’ difficulties on error diagnosis and feedback. For instance, during this adaptation tasks that is focused on opposition, the student-coaches were helping their teammates to look to the other side after sending the ball, in order to put the ball in the vulnerable zone of the opposite team. (Field notes, lesson 10) Afonso: “These meetings are helping us in our role as coaches. Unlike the case of the previous season, in this season you [n.r. the teacher] explain us the lesson plan, what we have done right or wrong, etc. […] I feel more competent as a coach.” (Video observation, extracurricular meeting, before lesson 10)

During the extracurricular meetings Afonso and Tiago raised the possibility

that using questioning would encourage their teammates to think about their

own difficulties.

Two examples of student coaches’ intervention were presented to them in this extracurricular meeting: prescriptive and questioning feedback, respectively. Then, student-coaches were asked about the differences between the two interactions. Teacher: “What is the difference between these two?”

Empirical Study 2

117

Tiago: “In the first video [n.r. prescriptive feedback] I explained to them what was supposed to do. In the second [n.r. video with questioning] I tried to ask my teammates so they could find their errors by themselves.” Teacher “So, our feedback can also be like…” Afonso: “… a question”. Teacher: “Exactly. What do you think is the best way to communicate with your teammates?” Tiago: “Questioning. In this way, they are obligated to think.” (Field notes and video observation, extracurricular meeting before lesson 15)

The following example shows how Tiago had progressed from a

prescriptive feedback during earlier lessons (lesson 6) to the use of questioning

in later lessons of the season (lesson 16).

Tiago to Alexandre: “Set the ball to your teammate. Do not send the ball here. Send there! […] Like I sent to you just now. […] But don’t set so high. […] Do not move from the targets […] Higher than that […] Do not set the ball immediately. Receive, wait, place the body and set. […] What you have to do is: receive, place the body and only then set!” (Video observation, lesson 6) Tiago: “Alexandre, where did the ball go? Where did the ball touch the floor? In which zone? Alexandre: “Here? [n.r. the zone of his responsibility]” Tiago: “Correct! Here. Who has to play this ball?” Alexandre: “Me.” Tiago: “Why?” Alexandre: “Because this is my responsibility zone.” Tiago: “Are you understanding now?” Alexandre: “Yes” Tiago: “Good! Lets’ try again.” (Video observation, lesson 16)

Throughout the season the three student-coaches also showed the ability

to modify tasks by representation (number of contacts per player, technical skill

used, number of players, task criteria, etc.) not only in acquisition tasks as it

happened in the previous season, but also on structuring and adaptation tasks.

Further, Afonso and Tiago were able to modify the tasks to focus students’

attention on a critical task component (modification by exaggeration).

Empirical Study 2

118

The teacher presented to the student-coaches a video in which Tiago was giving feedback to Alexandre but he continued to not having success in the task. Teacher: “What can we do in these situations? Sometimes, if our feedback is not enough we can modify the task.” (Video observation, extracurricular meeting before lesson 8) Tiago perceived that his teammates would not accomplish two critical components of the task (verbal communication and approach the net before the set). Therefore, he added points every time some teammate accomplished these two components. (Field notes, lesson 15)

Given these student-coaches’ instructional improvements, there was a

complete transfer of the instructional responsibility from the teacher to the

student-coaches. That is, the student-coaches planned the lesson, presented

the tasks, provide proper feedback and task modification.

It’s almost like the teacher was not needed during this lesson. He even had the time to leave the lesson for a while and students kept engaged on the learning tasks. During this lesson I only saw the teacher observing, praising students’ effort, informing student-coaches the times of the lesson (initiate/ending of the lesson, change tasks, initiate competition, etc.) and registering teams’ winnings in the end of the lesson. (Field notes, lesson 16)

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to identify the difficulties encountered by

student-coaches during peer-assisted tasks and then evaluate the interventions

that were put in place to address those difficulties, across two Sport Education

seasons. The results highlighted the efficacy of the protocols implemented

during the second and third units in improving student-coaches’ instructional

skills. Therefore, this study suggests the importance of specific formats for

student-coaches’ instructional preparation in order to fill the gap already

identified in Sport Education research related to the potential lack of student-

coaches’ instructional skills (e.g., Araújo et al., 2014; Hastie, 2000; Hastie et al.,

Empirical Study 2

119

2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005, 2007). Notwithstanding, the instructional

preparation of student-coaches needed to follow a gradual release of

instructional responsibility (Person & Gallagher, 1983) from the teacher to them.

Student-coaches progressed from situations in which the teacher took the

majority of the instructional responsibility (for instance, beginning of the first

protocol), to situations in which they assumed all or nearly all the instructional

responsibility (during the third season). During this gradual release of

instructional responsibility, the strategies applied to aid improvements in

student-coaches’ instruction were in some ways quite distinctive.

In particular, given the student-coaches’ instructional difficulties

encountered during the first season, it was necessary to provide them with

sufficient instrucional skills during the second season. The teachers’ modelling,

in which he offered student-coaches “behaviour for imitation” (Tharp &

Gallimore, 1998, p. 47), seemed to be important to provide them a visual model

of what was expected to do concerning to present and monitoring the learning

tasks. Additionally, this modelling strategy also allowed the direct maintenance

(Brophy, 1999) of the content to be taught during the lesson. That is, given all

student-coaches’ instructional difficulties, the only way to do not underestimate

students’ learning within the lesson was through a close intervention of the

teacher. The pre-lesson meeting with the student-coaches allowed the teacher

to delivered the knowledge regarding the tasks to be organized in the upcoming

lesson. Thus, the student-coaches started to be aware of the organization of the

tasks and, consequently, started to organize the tasks with their teammates.

Furthermore, during these meetings the teacher also had time to explain the

technical and tactical skills (namely, critical components, most common errors,

etc.) that would be taught during the lesson. The implementation of the

coaches’ corner allowed the teacher to guide student-coaches’ instructional

performance during the lesson, without provide information to the all class. This

strategy allowed the teacher to check if student-coaches were making some

major error (for instance, wrong organization of the task, lack of feedback, etc.).

If so, the teacher gathered the student-coaches and provide them feedback

Empirical Study 2

120

what they were doing. This endorsed the alignment of student learning with

intended teacher learning goals.

Despite these improvements, student-coaches still showed some

instructional difficulties. Therefore, during the third season an extracurricular

meeting was implemented during which the teachers’ and students’ roles

throughout the season were quite distinctive. Particularly, in the first phase of

this preparation, it was needed to provide student-coaches the necessary

instructional skills related to their remaining difficulties. The use of video

watching reduced the emphasis on student-coaches’ memory and allowed a

greater range of instructional behaviours to be analysed, a point already

highlighted by Carson (2008). In addition, it also allowed student-coaches a

greater depth and detailed analysis of their intervention (Byra, 1997). This

allowed student-coaches to improve their remaining instructional difficulties and

to go even further with their preparation, by the inclusion of questioning, an

important pedagogical strategy within constructivist and student-centred

approaches such as Sport Education (Chambers & Vickers, 2006; Dyson et al,

2004). As the results showed, the observation and further debate of the videos

presented by the teacher allowed student-coaches to better understand the

importance of questioning and started to use it during the following lessons.

During this phase the planning sheets allow the student-coaches to better

understand the lesson during the teacher’s explanation. This may be a result of

the potential role of planning sheets in overcoming the communication

inadequacies between the teacher and the student-coaches (King, 2002).

The second phase of the protocol for this third season allowed student-

coaches to be autonomous and to be creative problem solvers, to reflect their

own practices, and to interact with peers. These aspects were already identified

as important in constructivist (Azzarito & Ennis, 2003) and student-centred

environments, which is the case of Sport Education (Dyson et al., 2004). Within

the extracurricular meetings, the teacher moved from a “transmitter” and

directive role to a facilitator role. The teacher facilitated student construction of

knowledge by providing students the opportunity to discuss and debate

knowledge with peers. Through the use of videos from previous lessons and

Empirical Study 2

121

planning sheets, he recalled students’ prior knowledge by asking questions,

proving hints and allocated more time during the meetings for student-coaches

suggestions. This interaction among student-coaches also engaged them in an

autonomous and higher thinking learning process, and promoted sharing

understanding among all the student-coaches and, consequently, teammates

(Azzarito & Ennis, 2003). In fact, the student-coaches’ ability to solve problems

they encountered throughout the lesson was shown in the end of the season.

For instance, sometimes when students were not achieving the critical

components of the tasks, student-coaches were seen to modify a tasks

previously planned by the teacher, in order to focus teammates’ attention on a

specific tactical skill.

The present study also reinforces the previous accounts for student-

coaches’ instructional preparation (Araújo et al., 2014; Hastie et al. 2011;

Siedentop, 1995; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2007). Merely placing students in a

Sport Education seasons does not guarantee an actual student-centred

approach. Allocating students within teams and give them the opportunity to

apparently led their teammates with unprepared intervention jeopardizes the

pedagogical impact of Sport Education. It is necessary to provide student-

coaches’ sufficient instructional skills through the implementation, analysis, and

evaluation of protocols for the instructional preparation of those students. Only

by doing so it will be possible to achieve the authenticity and the affective and

social goals of Sport Education so valued by teachers and students, without

underestimate the students’ learning. That is, with proper preparation, student-

coaches can better organize learning tasks and motorize teammates’

performance, which might increase students’ learning

Notwithstanding, this study also showed that these protocols should take

into account the individual differences between student-coaches. That is, all the

three student-coaches achieve all aspects of their instructional preparation of

the second protocol. Nevertheless, when student-coaches were asked to use

more implicit and less directive pedagogical strategies (such as the case of

questioning and task modification by representation), one of them did not reach

this aspects. This also enhanced the need to properly choose the student-

Empirical Study 2

122

coaches. The students’ availability and willing to improve, as well as their status

(Brock et al., 2009), should be take into account, and not only their skill-level.

Conclusions

The present study intended to respond to the calls for the analysis of

student-coaches’ instructional performance during peer-assisted tasks of Sport

Education, and the impact of specific protocols for the instrucional preparation

of these students. Results showed the efficacy of these protocols on student-

coaches’ instructional improvements, namely in their ability to organize the

tasks to their teammates, diagnose errors and provide feedback, as well as

modify the task by representation and exaggeration. Nevertheless, this study

also showed that this preparation does not occur immediately, and different

strategies should be applied take into account the phase of student-coaches’

instructional preparation. In the beginning of the preparation it was important to

convoyed student-coaches basic instructional skills and in the third season the

preparation sought student-coaches’ ability to autonomously solve the problems

they might face during practice.

In addition, although this study has provided insights into the instructional

system operating within the working groups of the model, much more research

is needed related to the social system. Despite student-coaches have the

opportunity to choose the content and learning tasks they would structure in the

following lesson, the contribution of all their teammates was not ensured. In this

way, future research is encouraged to examine students’ engagement and the

dynamics operating within the teams (Araújo et al., 2014; Pereira et al., 2015).

Finally, future research should also analyse the impact of the instructional

evolution of the student-coaches on students’ learning.

Empirical Study 2

123

References

Araújo, R., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. (2014). Review of the Status of Learning in

Research on Sport Education: Future Research and Practice. Journal of

Sports Science and Medicine, 13(4), 846-858.

Azzarito, L., & Ennis, C. D. (2003). A Sense of Connection: Toward Social

Construtivist Physical Education. Sport, Education and Society, 8(2),

179-198.




Brophy, J. (1999). Toward a model of the value aspects of motivation in

education: Developing appreciation for particular learning domains and

activities. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 75-85.

Brunton, J. (2003). Changing hierarchies of power in physical education using

sport education. European Physical Education Review, 9(3), 267-284.

Byra, M. (1997). Postlesson Conferencing Strategies and Preservice Teachers'

Reflective Practices. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(1),

48-65.

Carson, F. (2008). Utilizing Video to Facilitate Reflective Practice: Developing

Sports Coaches. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,

3(3), 381-390.

Casey, A. (2014). Models-based practice: great white hope or white elephant?


Chambers, K. L., & Vickers, J. (2006). Effects of bandwidth feedback and

questioning on the performance of competitive swimmers. Sport

Psychologist, 20, 184-197.

Dyson, B. (2014). Quality Physical Education: A Commentary on Effective

Physical Education Teaching. Research Quarterly for Exercise and

Sport, 85, 144-152.

Empirical Study 2

124



Quest, 56(2), 226-240.

Hastie, P. A. (1996). Student Role Involvement During a Unit of Sport

Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 16(1), 88-103.

Hastie, P. A. (2000). An Ecological Analysis of a Sport Education Season.


Hastie, P. A. (2012). The nature and purpose of Sport Education as an

educational experience. In P. Hastie (Ed.), Sport Education: international

perspectives (Routledge Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport

(pp. 1-12). USA: Routledge.




Hastie, P. A., & Sinelnikov, O. (2006). Russian students’ participation in and

perceptions of a season of Sport Education. European Physical


Irwin, G., Hanton, S., & Kerwin, D. (2004). Reflective practice and the origins of

elite coaching knowledge. Reflective Practice: International and

Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 5(3), 425-442.

doi:10.1080/1462394042000270718

King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive

processing. Theory into Practice, 41, 33-39.

Layne, T., & Hastie, P. (2014). Active involvement and accuracy of calls of

novice referees during a season of sport education. The Physical

Educator, 71, 454-467.

Lofland, J. (2003). Field notes. In C. Seale (Ed.), Social research methods: a

reader (pp. 232-235). London: Routledge.

Mesquita, I., Graça, A., Gomes, A. R., & Cruz, C. (2005). Examining the Impact

of a Step Game Approach to Teaching Volleyball on Student Tactical

Decision Making and Skill Execution During Game Play. Journal of

Human Movement Studies, 48(6), 469-492.

Empirical Study 2

125



Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3 ed.).

London: SAGE.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading

comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344.





Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography: Images, Media and Representation

in Research (2 ed.). London: SAGE.

Rink, J., French, K., & Tjeerdsma, B. (1996). Foundations for the learning and

instruction of sport and games. Journal of Teaching in Physical

Education, 15(4), 399-417.

Siedentop, D. (1995). Improving sport education. ACHPER Australia Healthy

Lifestyles Journal, 42(4), 22-24.



Smith, J., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. In: . Ed:

Smith, J. London: Sage. 51-80. In J. Smith & J. London (Eds.),

Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods (Vol. 51-

80). London: Sage.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: analysis types and software tool. New

York: The Falmer Press.

Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning,

and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wallhead, T., & O'Sullivan, M. (2005). Sport education: Physical education for

the new millennium? Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10(2),

181-210.

Empirical Study 2

126




Empirical Study 3

_________________________________________________

The long-term development of volleyball competence using Sport

Education and Step-Game-Approach models

Rui Araújo 1, Isabel Mesquita 1, Peter A. Hastie 2, Keith R. Lohse 2, and

Cristiana Pereira 1 1 Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport, CIFI2D,


Submitted: Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy

Empirical Study 3

129

Abstract

Background: Research on Sport Education has highlighted evidence of the

achievement of a number of goals of the model, particularly those relating to

enthusiastic participation and literacy. Nevertheless, it also has uncovered

some key factors that warrant further investigation. Notable among these are

longitudinal data collection extending beyond a single Sport Education season,

the analysis of the nature of the learning tasks and content taught during non-

invasions games seasons; and more quantitative research concerning the

diferatiating effect of sex and skill-level on students’ learning.

Purpose: Based on these areas of need, the purpose of the present study was

therefore to analyse students’ game play performance improvements across

three hybrid Sport Education-Step-Game-Approach seasons, taking into

account students’ sex and skill-level.

Participants and setting: The participants were eighteen students (8 girls and 10

boys; aged between 11 and 13) from one physical education class in a school in

northern Portugal. This study followed a longitudinal design that included three

volleyball seasons over three school years (from 7th to 9th grade). The three

Sport-Education-SGA seasons ranged between 20 to 25 volleyball lessons, and

followed all the key organization features of Sport Education (i.e. seasons,

persisting teams, formal competition, record keeping, festivity and a culminating

event), while the learning tasks followed the didactical framework of the SGA.

Data collection and analysis: Students’ play performance at the entry (PreT)

and exit (PosT) points of each season was evaluated using the Game

Performance Assessment Instrument during 2vs2 games. A series of

hierarchical linear models were then constructed in order to quantify impact of

sex, skill and time on the students' changes in Game Performance index over

the three seasons.

Findings and conclusions: The best predictive model showed a nonlinear effect

of time on student performance (controlling for skill), such that all participants

improved levels improved from their first experience with both models at the 7th

grade through to the end of the 9th grade season. There was also a statistically

Empirical Study 3

130

significant effect of interaction between skill and time in such that the rate of

improvement for the lower skilled players was steeper than the rate of

improvement for the higher skilled players. The extension of the combined used

of and the SGA models beyond a single season experience seemed to make

positive contributions to students’ improvements throughout the three years. In

particular, it could be assumed that students became progressively familiarized

with these organizational and instructional issues throughout the three seasons,

spent less time on these tasks and, consequently, spent more time on learning

tasks. Also, by the of the SGA students’ skill practice were presented mostly as

game-like situations, notably through the use of structuring and adaptation

tasks, and according to the problems disclosed by the game play within a step-

by-step approach. Future research is encouraged to use longitudinal qualitative

designs to examine students’ engagement and the dynamics operating within

hybrid models.

Keywords

GPAI; longitudinal design; physical education; sex; skill-level

Introduction

In his treatise on model-based practice within physical education, (Casey

2014) recognizes the tension that exists between model-makers and curriculum

praxis. While acknowledging that changing practice is difficult for teachers, he

does suggest that model-based practice has the potential to be more a great

white hope than a white elephant. What Casey calls for, however, is research

that focuses beyond the initial use of a model to a more longitudinal

examination of impact. With specific focus on Sport Education (perhaps the

most studied of the instructional models listed by Metzler (2011), there has

been a similar call for the need for gathering longitudinal data that extend

beyond a single season (Araújo, Mesquita, and Hastie 2014; Hastie, Martinez

de Ojeda, and Calderón 2011; Wallhead and O'Sullivan 2005). The main

stimulus in this case has been research that recognizes the potential of Sport

Empirical Study 3

131

Education for developing students’ skill and tactical awareness (e.g. Hastie

1998a; Hastie et al. 2013; Hastie, Sinelnikov, and Guarino 2009; Pritchard et al.

2008; Mesquita, Farias, and Hastie 2012; Farias, Mesquita, and Hastie 2015),

but in all cases has explored but a single season.

The call for longitudinal studies is grounded in the notion of ‘time’ as a

critical element in Sport Education. Given the complexity of the organization of

activities within Sport Education (e.g., distributing roles, establishing formal

competition, allocating students to teams, among others), and the instructional

shift from a teacher-directed to a student-driven model, a number of authors

have reinforced the critical nature of longer rather than shorter seasons (see

Brunton 2003; Hastie 1998a, 1998b; Hastie et al. 2013; Mesquita, Farias, and

Hastie 2012; Pritchard et al. 2008). By consequence, a study of Sport Education

implementation beyond a single season might allow the examination of the

critical elements which have the most significant impact on the teaching and

learning process (Araújo, Mesquita and Hastie 2014). In addition, an application

of Sport Education over repeated seasons (where team composition and the

sport played remain constant) might promote positive aspects of the social and

instructional systems within working groups and consequently improve student

learning (Wallhead and O’Sullivan 2005). The goal of the present study then,

was to respond to calls for more longitudinal data collection protocols and

analyse students’ achievement of volleyball skill over multiple Sport Education

seasons.

Another need area identified by Sport Education researcher has been the

nature of the learning tasks and content taught during seasons (Araújo,

Mesquita, and Hastie 2014). Specifically, Sport Education is an ‘outward-

focused’ model (Hastie and Curtner-Smith 2006, 23), in which the primary

concern is the promotion of a more democratic and inclusive pedagogy, in

particular the pedagogical environment as teacher and students’ roles

(Siedentop, Hastie, and Van der Mars 2011). To provide a more inward-focus

on the didactics of instruction, Araújo, Mesquita, and Hastie (2014), have called

for alliances of Sport Education and other instructional models and research

designs that allow for the specific examination of the content and learning tasks

Empirical Study 3

132

taught during the season. Nonetheless, despite research has focused on hybrid

model use in teaching invasion games (e.g., Teaching Game for Understanding:

Hastie and Curtner-Smith, 2006; Invasion Games Competence Model:

Mesquita, Farias, and Hastie 2012; Tactical Games: Pritchard et al., 2014),

there is an absence of hybrid model use within non-invasion games (Araújo,

Mesquita, and Hastie 2014; Harvey and Jarret 2014).

The Step-Game-Approach (SGA: Mesquita et al., 2005) may have the

potential to fill this gap through the provision of an appropriate framework for

development of game play ability in non-invasion games such as volleyball,

tennis or badminton. In this model, three types of instructional tasks are

implemmented. Namely, adaptation tasks (in which the goal, action structure

and basic tactical features are identical to the full volleyball game), structuring

tasks (comprehend the same tactical and technical skills of the game but

without opposition) and acquisition tasks (focused on the development of a

specific skill) (Mesquita et al. 2015; Pereira et al. 2011). Moreover, students are

presented with progressive (step-by-step) game problems that challenge their

capacity for understanding and current performance profiles. In this way, a

hybrid Sport Education - SGA unit may have the potential to provide all the

affective and social goals of Sport Education, without underestimated the

content to be taught during the season.

In addtion to the afforementioned gaps, Sport Education research has also

identified differential effects of sex and skill-level on students’ achievement

(Araújo, Mesquita, and Hastie 2014). While some studies have revealed

superior learning opportunities for boys and higher skill-level students (e.g.

Alexander and Luckman 2001; Brock, Rovegno, and Oliver 2009; Hastie 1998a,

1998b; Hastie, Sinelnikov, and Guarino 2009; Hastie and Sinelnikov 2006),

others have shown advantages for girls and lower skill-level students (Carlson

and Hastie 1997; Mesquita, Farias, and Hastie 2012). Nonetheless, all of these

studies are limited to a single unit experience and only one study has

considered the application of hybrid models (Mesquita, Farias, and Hastie

2012).

Empirical Study 3

133

The limitations of previous Sport Education research related with both unit

design and accounting for sex and skill-level contributed to the purpose of the

present study. More specifically, this study sought to analyse students’ game

play performance improvements across three hybrid Sport Education-Step-

Game-Approach seasons, taking into account students’ sex and skill-level.

Methods

Participants

The participants in this study were 18 students (8 girls and 10 boys) aged

between 11 and 13 (M = 11.8) from one physical education class in a school in

northern Portugal. The school board approved the study and participants were

informed of the aims of the study and confidentiality of data was assured. The

Ethics Committee of the researchers’ university approved the present study.

Design of the Study

The present study followed a longitudinal design that included three hybrid

Sport Education-Step-Game-Approach seasons over three years. The study

began when the students were in the 7th grade and ended during their 9th grade.

The students had no previous experience with either of the models. Despite

some minor changes and withdrawals, the students remained in the same class

throughout the entire study. Given the Portuguese PE curriculum allowed for

teaching only one volleyball unit per school year (7th, 8th and 9th) the three

seasons were separated by approximately 12 months. In the time between the

three seasons, none of the physical education lessons were taught using Sport

Education or SGA models.

The Sport Education-SGA Unit

The three Sport-Education-SGA seasons ranged between 20 to 25

volleyball lessons, with three 45 minutes lessons being scheduled per week.

Each season followed all the key organization features of Sport Education (i.e.

seasons, persisting teams, formal competition, record keeping, festivity and a

Empirical Study 3

134

culminating event), while the learning tasks followed the didactical framework of

the SGA. Table 1 provides a complete outline of the season plans for each of

the three seasons.

Table 1. Unit plans for the three Sport Education-SGA seasons First unit Second unit Third unit

Lesson 1 and 2 Explanation of the model and competition format Allocation of teams and individual roles Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass, 1vs1 Within-team practice Lesson 3 - 6 Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass, 1vs1 (displacement and position in court) Within-team practice Lesson 7 - 10 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass and 1vs1 (opposition) Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring) Lesson 11- 16 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, underhand serve and 1vs1 (opposition) Lesson planned by the teacher and students had the opportunity to plan some learning-tasks Within-team practice and role practice Formal competition: 1vs1 Lesson 17-24 Formal Competition: 1vs1 and 2vs2 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, 1vs1, and 2vs2

Lesson 1 Explanation of the competition format and handbooks Allocation of teams Student-directed instruction: warm-up Teacher-directed instruction: overhead pass and 2vs2 (position in court and verbal communication) Lesson 2 and 3 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass and 2vs2 (approach to the net by the setter) Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring) Lesson 4-6 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass (non-linear trajectory) and 2vs2 Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 7-16 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass (non-linear trajectory) and 2vs2 Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 13-16 Formal Competition: 2vs2 Student-directed instruction: warm-up, overhead pass (non-linear trajectory) and

Lesson 1 Explanation of the competition format and handbooks Allocation of teams Friendly competition: 2vs2 Lesson 2 - 4 Student-direct instruction: warm-up, 2vs2 game and overhead pass in a linear trajectory Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring) Formal competition: 2vs2 with specific rules Statistics and refereeing (ball in/out and permission to serve) Lesson 5 - 8 Student-direct instruction: warm-up, overhead pass in a non-linear trajectory, verbal communication and different functions in 2vs2 Within-team practice and role practice (shared teacher- and student-directed monitoring) Formal competition: 2vs2 with specific rules to promote verbal communication Statistics and refereeing (ball in/out and permission to serve) Lesson 9 and 11 Student-direct instruction: warm-up, transition and opposition Within-team practice and role practice Formal competition: 2vs2 with specific rules to promote the approach of the setter to the net in the 2nd touch Statistics and refereeing (more than one touch for player and three for team) Lesson 12 - 14 Student-direct instruction: warm-up and forearm pass

Empirical Study 3

135

Lesson planned by the teacher with students having the opportunity to plan some learning-tasks Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 25 Culminating event

2vs2 Lesson planned by the teacher Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 17-19 Formal Competition: 2vs2 Student-coaches and their teams planned content and learning tasks to the lesson Within-team practice and role practice Lesson 20 Culminating event

Within-team practice and role practice (student-directed monitoring) Formal competition: 2vs2 with specific rules to promote opposition Statistics and refereeing (all the rules) Lesson 15 and 21 Student-coaches and their teams planned content and learning tasks to the lesson Within-team practice and role practice (student-directed monitoring) Formal competition: 2vs2 with larger courts Statistics and refereeing Lesson 22 Culminating event

The Sport Education Processes. All the seasons were divided into phases

of skill and tactical practice, non-consequential practice matches, and formal

competition. In the earlier lessons of each season, the procedures embedded in

Sport Education were addressed and students were allocated to mixed-ability

teams based on a pre-season assessment test). In the following phase of the

season students participated on within-team practices, learning about officiating

responsibilities, scrimmage game play, and formal competition. During the

second and third units, the concept of ‘graded competition’ (Siedentop, Hastie,

and Van der Mars 2011) was implemented. That is, during competitive matches,

each team created sub-teams who competed against other students of similar

skill-levels. In the last lessons of each season a culminating event was

organized. During the three seasons students were allocated in different within-

team (e.g., equipment manager and student-coach) and within-match roles

(e.g., student-coaches, equipment managers, referees and statisticians on a

rotating basis). The student-coach was chosen by the teacher and the

researchers based on their ability to perform that role and to prevent potential

imbalanced power relations between students based on status and sex, the

latter feature being found important in research on Sport Education (Brock,

Rovegno, and Oliver 2009; Hastie 1998b). Additionally, the formal competition

schedule ensured the equitable participation of all students (e.g. same playing

time for all students) and students were regularly held formally accountable for

Empirical Study 3

136

their fair-play behaviours during competition. Throughout the study (second and

third seasons), student-coaches were progressively called to take upon more

responsibility for instruction. Between lessons two and five of the first season,

student-coaches were only responsible for warm-up tasks. From lessons seven

and ten student-coaches began to lead instruction during peer-assisted tasks,

and eleventh onwards they started to choose the learning tasks deemed

required for their teams’ performance improvements. During the second unit

student-coaches started to be responsible for almost all the peer-assisted tasks

sooner in the season, and in the third unit all lessons were student-driven.

The SGA approach. The 2vs2 game was considered the most suitable for

the diagnosis of the level of the participants (Mesquita et al. 2005). On the one

hand, it allows the identification of basic performance levels when players are

unable to minimally sustain the ball (step 1). On the other hand, it also identifies

performance levels above that range from the minimum capacity to support the

ball (step 2) to the capacity of organizing game actions (early 3rd step), or even

the ability to differentiate the most suitable solutions for the game situation

(early 4th step). Based on the students’ performance on a 2vs2 assessment test

conducted prior to each unit, the first step was applied (Mesquita et al. 2005).

The main goal of this step was to understand the logic of the simplest game

form (1vs1 game), namely two main tactical skills were taught in this step:

intervention (place the body where the ball is) and opposition (play the ball to

the vulnerable place of the opponent court, both in the serve and in the attack).

In addition, two technical skills were taught, namely the overhead pass and the

underhand serve. Nevertheless, given the simplicity of the 1vs1 game, the 2vs2

was also included in the end of this season without requiring tactical demands

related with the teammate or the opposite team. The second season was

dedicated to the second step of SGA. More specifically, the main goal was to

achieve the ability to cooperate with a partner while challenging opponents,

which requires that players take different roles in the attacking phase. In this

way, while the 2vs2 game was again taught during this second season, three

specific tactical skills were introduced. These included (i) watching the

opponents’ placement; (ii) developing verbal communication; and (iii) assigning

Empirical Study 3

137

accountability zones. Additionally, the forearm pass was also taught, since the

students needed other technical skills to play the ball with lower and faster

trajectories. The assessment test prior to the third season revealed to distinct

skill levels within the class. Some students were ready to learn the third step of

the SGA, but other students were still having difficulties with the 2vs2 game.

Variations to the learning tasks and game rules were implemented during this

third season in order to adjust the difficulty of learning tasks across different

skill-levels. In addition, while graded competition was maintained in terms of

similarly skilled opponents, the games themselves also differed in terms of

rules, court dimensions and scoring. As an example, higher skill-level students

played the 2vs2 on bigger courts and without any adaptation to the regulations

(more touches per player, rebound, etc.). On the other hand, lower skill-level

students not only played on smaller courts but also were allowed more than one

touch per player or three per team.

Instructional and Treatment Validity

Itemizing Teacher and Learner Processes. A 10-item checklist (table 2)

was adapted from Hastie et al. (2013) and Pereira et al. (2011) in order to

confirm the behavioural fidelity of the teacher’s instruction according to both

Sport Education and SGA model. Two trained observers with extensive

research in instructional models observed randomly selected lessons of the

three seasons and recorded the presence of those items. Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8

and 9 are characteristics of Sport Education, while items 2, 6 and 10 are related

to SGA model. A 100% agreement between the three observers confirmed the

absence of doubt regarding the instructional model used in each lesson.

Empirical Study 3

138

Table 2. Instructional checklist (adapted from Hastie et al., 2013 and Pereira et al., 2011) 1. Group of students go to a designated home area and begin warming up with that group. 2. The tasks under observation are basic game forms, game-like tasks or acquisition tasks, and the time spent in acquisition tasks is reduced to the minimum necessary. 3. Students practice together with their group/team under the direction of a peer leader. 4. The content of the task is related with the stage of the SGA that is being taught during the unit. 5. Students remain a part of easily identifiable groups throughout the lesson and throughout different tasks. 6. All the tasks are related with the small-sided game that is being taught. 7. Performance records are kept by students. 8. Students perform specialized tasks within their group/team. 9. Student performance scores count toward a formal and public scoring system. 10. Modifications to the full-game were performed.

Contextual and Operational Requirements.

In order to guarantee a proper implementation of an instructional model,

some favourable contextual conditions should be guaranteed, such as teacher

expertise and operational requirements (Hastie and Casey 2014; Metzler 2011).

With regard to the teacher expertise, despite his experience with PE (more than

20 years of teaching experience) and Sport Education (two years implementing

the model) the teacher participated in a workshop during the school year prior to

this study. This workshop comprised of lectures that focused on several

instructional models in PE context, discussions of the conceptualization and

purpose of Sport Education model, the specific application of Sport Education to

volleyball, as well as highlights of the outcomes of Sport Education research. In

addition, during the year prior to the study the teacher accomplished his

master’s degree, in which he applied of a hybrid Sport Education-SGA volleyball

unit. With specific regard to operational requirements, the space (at least 3

volleyball courts in all lessons) and material available (balls, cones, scorers,

whistles, etc.) to practice were guaranteed in order to create the perfect

conditions for the students learning throughout the implementation of the study.

Empirical Study 3

139

Data Collection

A systematic observation of video records of students’ behaviours while

playing a 10 minute 2vs2 game was used in order to analyse students’ play

performance at the entry (PreT) and exit (PosT) of each season. The tally

scoring method of the Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI;

Oslin, Mitchell, and Griffin 1998; Mitchell, Oslin, and Griffin 2006) adapted to the

volleyball requirements (Mesquita et al. 2005) was used. When the amounts of

those actions were totalled, the Game Performance Index was calculated as

follows: (Decision Making+Adjustment+Skill Efficiency+Skill Efficacy)/4. A total

of 39,208 students’ behaviours, during approximately 3,360 minutes of

observations, were coded across the three seasons.

The reliability of the data was examined through intra-observer (15 days

after the first observation) and inter-observer testing procedures (performed by

a second observer). Following the recommendations of (Tabachnick and Fidell

2007), two researchers who were experienced in volleyball as both coaches

and players assessed 10% of the complete data set. Intraclass Correlation

Coefficients (ICC; Atkinson and Nevill 1998; Baumgartner and Jackson 1995)

ranged between 87% and 98%, which are above the percentages suggested by

(Fleiss, Levin, and Paik 2003) as acceptable levels.

Data Analysis

In order to quantify changes in the Game Performance Index over time, a

series of hierarchical linear models were constructed. For these models, Time

(measured in pre-/post-season assessments over three years for six total time

points) was nested within students. These mixed-effect regressions treated

Time, Skill Level (-0.5 = low skill; 0.5 = high skill), and Sex (-0.5 = Male; 0.5 =

Female) as fixed-effects.

Mixed effect linear regressions were conducted using R and R Studio (R

Core Team, 2014) using the ‘lme4’ (Bates et al. 2014) and ‘dplyr’ (Wickham and

Francois 2014) packages. To model changes in the Game Performance Index a

‘step-up’ procedure was used in which variables were added to successive

models. Models were compared based on the Akaike Information Criterion

Empirical Study 3

140

(AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and Wald Tests for the change in

deviance with α = 0.05 (Long 2012). The first model was a ‘random intercepts’

model that establishes a baseline level of deviance against which subsequent

models were compared. Subsequent models added factors of Time, Skill Level,

the quadratic effect of time, sex, and their interactions.

Results

The results of the students’ game play performances are presented in

Table 3, while Table 4 shows the outcomes of the various steps in the multi-

level modelling step up procedure. Figure 1 shows the change curves for each

participant as well as the mean (coloured line) at each assessment point.

Table 3. Game play performance across three seasons

Season 1

Pre-test M (SD)

Post-test M (SD)

∆

Population .51 (.17) .73 (.09) .22 Males .60 (.12) .76 (.08) .16

Females .38 (.14) .69 (.10) .31 Higher skilled .66 (.06) .77 (.09) .11 Lower skilled .40 (.12) .70 (.09) .30

Season 2

Pre-test M (SD)

Post-test M (SD)

∆



Season 3

Pre-test M (SD)

Post-test M (SD)

∆



Empirical Study 3

141

Table 4. Model comparisons

df AIC BIC logLik Deviance χ2 χdf p M0 3 767.36 775.02 -380.68 761.36 M1 6 729.66 744.99 -358.83 717.66 43.69 3 1.75e-

09 M2 7 724.90 742.78 -355.83 710.90 6.76 1 0.0093 M3 8 719.57 740.00 -351.78 703.57 7.33 1 0.0068 M4 12 704.89 735.54 -340.45 680.89 22.67 4 0.0001 M5 16 709.24 750.10 -338.62 677.24 3.65 4 0.4550

Figure 1. Individual and mean change curves

An examination of Table 4 shows that Model 4 provides the best fit. Model

4 predicted game performance as a function of the continuous variables of Time

and Time2, the categorical variable of Skill (lower = -0.5; higher = 0.5), and the

interaction of Skill with Time. Model 4 suggests that there was a nonlinear effect

of time on student performance, controlling for Skill, such that all participants

improved, but the rate of improvement declined over time. There was also a

statistically significant effect of Skill (see Table 5), in which lower skilled players

had significantly lower game performance at the first assessment (17.21 points

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

Pre 1 Pst 1 Pre 2 Pst 2 Pre 3 Pst 3

Ga

me

Pe

rfo

rm

an

ce

In

de

x

Assessment Point

Empirical Study 3

142

lower at the intercept) than higher skilled players. Furthermore, there was a

significant interaction of the Time and Skill, such that the rate of improvement

for the lower skilled players was steeper than the rate of improvement for the

higher skilled players. It should be noted that adding students’ Sex to the model

(along with the interactions of Sex with Time and Skill) did not explain any

additional variance (see Model 5 in Table 4). By all model fit indices (AIC, BIC,

and change in deviance), adding Sex as a predictor did not improve the model

controlling for Skill and Time.

Table 5. Model summary

Fixed-Effects Estimate Std. Error t (17) p Intercept 57.64 2.14 26.91 < 0.001 Time 13.28 3.19 4.16 < 0.001 Skillc 17.21 3.82 4.51 < 0.001 Time2 -1.26 0.42 -3.04 .003 Time:Skillc -2.39 0.99 -2.42 .014 Random-Effects

Groups Name Variance SD Cor Subject Intercept 22.57 4.75 Time 92.26 9.61 -0.31 Time2 1.46 1.21 0.30 Residual 50.38 7.10 Note. Estimates and standard error terms are presented as percentages. Cor = Correlation between the slope and intercept random-effects.

Given that the nonlinear model provided the best fit, Table 5 shows the

values of the various fixed effects within the model, the predictions of which are

shown in Figure 2. Examination of this figure shows that while lower skilled

students began at a lower entry point in the beginning of the seventh grade, by

the end of the ninth grade unit they were approaching the game play

performances of the higher-level students.

Empirical Study 3

143

Figure 2. Predictions from the nonlinear model effect of time.

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to analyse students’ game play

performance improvements across three hybrid Sport Education-SGA seasons.

In addition, this analysis took into account students’ sex and skill-levels. The

findings of the study showed that students of both sexes and skill levels

improved from their first experience with both models at the 7th grade until their

9th grade.

The extension of Sport Education implementation beyond a single season

experience has shown to be crucial of students’ learning. The sporadic

application of Sport Education seasons or the application of a single season

over time gives no time to control all the variables that could interfere with the

teaching and learning process (Brunton 2003). The complexity of the

organization of the activities within Sport Education (such as the distribution of

roles, the establishment of formal competition, and the allocation of students to

teams) and the relinquishment of the instructional leadership from the teacher to

the student-coaches have an impact on the effective time for practice and,

consequently, the time available for learning. Notwithstanding, in the present

study it could be assumed that students became progressively familiarized with

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ga

me

Pe

rfo

rm

an

ce

In

de

x

Assessment Point

Higher

skilled

Lower

skilled

Empirical Study 3

144

these organizational and instructional issues throughout the three seasons,

spent less time on these tasks and, consequently, spent more time on learning

tasks. For instance, during the first unit, students spent considerable time

changing from one game to another within the competition phase. However, in

the following seasons they become more familiarized with the organizational

issues and the teacher could dedicate more time for practice or competition

within the lesson.

The combined used of Sport Education and the SGA also seemed to

make positive contributions to students’ improvements throughout the three

years. Indeed, from the beginning of the study students were presented with a

number of pedagogies that could enhance their learning. First and foremost,

game forms and technical and tactical skills were introduced to students

according to the problems disclosed by the game play within a step-by-step

approach (Mesquita et al. 2005). This phased progression allowed that both

formal and functional structure complexity remained aligned with the students’

tactical understanding and skill-level (Mesquita et al. 2015) throughout the three

years.

In addition, skill practices across the three units were presented mostly as

game-like situations, notably through the use of structuring and adaptation

tasks. This allowed students to practice within the same technical and tactical

structure and the variability of practice that resembled the actual game

conditions (Mesquita et al. 2015; Pereira et al. 2011). The integration of

technical and tactical components promoted significant gains in overall game

performance (which promotes both technical and tactical skill development) and

served to minimize the technical/tactical dualism previously discussed by other

researchers (French et al. 1996; Turner and Martinek 1999). These results

therefore support the need of holistic grounded programs rather than the

instruction of isolated skills as the preferred building blocks of game

competence (Mesquita et al. 2005).

Empirical Study 3

145

Findings According to Students’ Sex

As noted earlier, previous research on Sport Education has shown a

differentiating effect of students’ sex on their skill and game play improvements.

In these three hybrid Sport Education-SGA units, however, both boys and girls

showed similar game performance improvements from the beginning of the

study (7th grade) until the end of the three years (9th grade). This suggested that

the application of more than one Sport Education season over time might serve

to promote more equitable learning opportunities. While a number of equity

promoting features were instigated during the first season, the fact that these

were sustained and consolidated throughout the second and third seasons may

have given the students more time to appreciate them. Students started to feel

confortable to see all their teammates regardless their sex participating in all the

learning tasks, powerful positions (student-coaches, referees, etc.) and support

activities (statistician, etc.).

In addition, the affiliation achieved through the notion of persisting teams

embedded within Sport Education may have also contributed to the full

participation of all students. Specifically, by remaining on the same team across

the three years, the students were able to practice together and to support and

hold each other accountable. This ‘content imbedded accountability’ (Hastie and

Siedentop 2006) has been shown to promote students’ task engagement and

achievement of other common performance goals regardless of their sex

(Hastie et al. 2013; Pereira et al. 2015; Pritchard et al. 2008; Pritchard et al.

2014; Siedentop 1986).

Findings According to Students’ Skill-Level

In this study all students improved independently of their skill-level during

the first and second seasons. This can be observed in the Figure 2, in which

both higher and lower skill-level students improved in a similar way during these

two seasons. This was accomplished by the adjustment of content and learning

tasks according to the students’ skill-levels, namely through the use of task

modification. In particular, despite the participation of both skill-levels in the

same tasks, the difficulty of the task was adjusted to students’ skill-level. For

Empirical Study 3

146

instance, in a task in which the goal was sustain the ball over the net, high skill-

level students could only touch the ball one time while lower skill-level students

were allowed multiple contacts. In addition, the use of the graded competition

implemented during the second unit also contributed to the reduction of

difference between skill-levels during game play.

Notwithstanding, the results also show that despite the improvements of

all students, lower skill-level students achieved greater gains during the last

season. In fact, by the end of this third season, the lower skill-level students

were approaching the game performance scores of higher skill-level students. It

may well have been the case that in this third unit, the graded competition

should not only have the adaptation of rules, but also differente game forms

according to students’ skill-level. That is, the higher-skilled students may have

needed more challenging game (e.g., 3vs3) in order for everyone to be working

according their needs and levels, and thereby challenging them to work within

their ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky 1978).

Conclusions

This study has shown the value of implementing multiple seasons of the

same sport within Sport Education, particularly when team composition is kept

constant. The results show that all students achieved significant improvements

in game play with each successive season, regardless their sex and skill-level.

Further, the implementation of three units seems to produce a fading in the

gaps between skill levels.

While this study provided an analysis of more explicit and measurable

variables (e.g. sex and skill-level) related to the goals of Sport Education, an

examination of more implicit and less transparent variables operating within the

teaching and learning process (such is the case of students’ status) might also

follow. Future research is thereby encouraged in which longitudinal qualitative

designs are used to examine students’ engagement and the dynamics

operating within hybrid models. In this way, it would be possible to obtain a

more realistic portrait of the impact of these models, deeply understand the

Empirical Study 3

147

teaching-learning process by the identification of possible factors that might

promote different learning opportunities and, consequently, guide future model-

based research and practical implementations (Araújo, Mesquita, and Hastie

2014).

Funding

This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and

Technology (FCT) / POPH / QREN / European Social Fund under Grant

number SFRH/BD/72361/2010.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Cláudio Farias for his assistance with the

preparation of this manuscript.

References

Alexander, Ken, and Jan Luckman. 2001. "Australian teachers’ perceptions and

uses of the sport education curriculum model." European Physical

Education Review 7 (3): 243-67.

Araújo, Rui, Isabel Mesquita, and Peter A. Hastie. 2014. "Review of the Status

of Learning in Research on Sport Education: Future Research and

Practice." Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 13 (4): 846-58.

Atkinson, G., and A. Nevill. 1998. "Statistical methods for assessing

measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine."

Sport Medicine 26 (4): 217-38.

Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker, and Steve Walker. 2014. "Fitting

linear mixed-effects models using lme4." Journal of Statistical Software

55: 1-9.

Empirical Study 3

148

Baumgartner, Ted A., and Andrew S. Jackson. 1995. Measurement for

evaluation in physical education and exercise science. Dubuque, IA:

Brown & Benchmark.

Brock, Sheri J., Inez Rovegno, and Kimberly L. Oliver. 2009. "The influence of

student status on student interactions and experiences during a sport

education unit." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14 (4): 355-75.

Brunton, Julie A. 2003. "Changing hierarchies of power in physical education

using sport education." European Physical Education Review 9 (3): 267-

84.

Carlson, Teresa B., and Peter A. Hastie. 1997. "The Student Social System

Within Sport Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 16

(2): 176-95.

Casey, Ashley. 2014. "Models-based practice: great white hope or white

elephant?" Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 19 (1): 18-34.

Farias, Claúdio, Isabel Mesquita, and Peter A. Hastie. 2015. "Game

Performance and Understanding Within a Hybrid Sport Education

Season." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 34 (3): 363-83.

Fleiss, Joseph L., Bruce A. Levin, and Myunghee C. Paik. 2003. Statistical

Methods for Rates and Proportions. Wiley, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

French, Karen E., Peter H. Werner, Judith E. Rink, Kevin Taylor, and Kevin

Hussey. 1996. "The effects of a 3-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined

tactical and skill instruction on Badminton performance of ninth-grade

students." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 15 (4): 418-38.

Harvey, Stephen, and Kendall Jarret. 2014. "A review of the game-centred

approaches to teaching and coaching literature since 2006." Physical

Education and Sport Pedagogy 19 (3): 278-300.

Hastie, Peter A. 1998a. "Skill and tactical development during a sport education

season." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69 (4): 368-79.

Hastie, Peter A. 1998b. "The Participation and Perceptions of Girls Within a Unit

of Sport Education." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17 (2):

157-171.

Empirical Study 3

149

Hastie, Peter A., Antonio Calderón, Ramiro Rolim, and Anthony J. Guarino.

2013. "The Development of Skill and Knowledge During a Sport

Education Season of Track and Field Athletics." Research Quarterly for

Exercise and Sport 84 (3): 336-44.

Hastie, Peter A., and Ashley Casey. 2014. "Fidelity in models-based practice

research in sport pedagogy: A guide for future investigations." Journal of

Teaching in Physical Education 33 (3): 422-31.

Hastie, Peter A., Diego Martinez de Ojeda, and Antonio Calderón. 2011. "A

Review of Research on Sport Education: 2004 to the Present." Physical

Education and Sport Pedagogy 16 (2): 103-32.

Hastie, Peter A., and Mathew D. Curtner-Smith. 2006. "Influence of a hybrid

Sport Education - Teaching Games for Understanding unit on one

teacher and his students." Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 11

(1): 1-27.

Hastie, Peter A., and Oleg Sinelnikov. 2006. "Russian students’ participation in

and perceptions of a season of Sport Education." European Physical

Education Review 12 (2): 131-50.

Hastie, Peter A., Oleg Sinelnikov, and Anthony J. Guarino. 2009. "The

development of skill and tactical competencies during a season of

badminton." European Journal of Sport Science 9 (3): 133-40.

Hastie, Peter A., and Daryl Siedentop. 2006. "The classroom ecology

paradigm." In The Handbook of Physical Education, edited by David Kirk,

Doune Macdonald and Mary O'Sullivan, 214-226. London: Sage.

Long, Jeffrey S. 2012. Longitudinal data analysis for the behavioral sciences

using R. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Mesquita, Isabel, José Afonso, Patrícia Coutinho, and Rui Araújo. 2015.

"Modelo de abordagem progressiva ao jogo no ensino do voleibol:

conceção, metodologia, estratégias pedagógicas e avaliação." In Jogos

Desportivos Coletivos: ensinar a jogar, edited by Fernando Tavares, 73-

122. Porto: Editora FADEUP.

Mesquita, Isabel, Cláudio Farias, and Peter A. Hastie. 2012. "The impact of a

hybrid Sport Education-Invasion Games Competence Model soccer unit

Empirical Study 3

150

on students' decision making, skill execution and overall game

performance." European Physical Education Review 18 (2): 205-19.

Mesquita, Isabel, Amândio Graça, Alexandra R. Gomes, and Clara Cruz. 2005.

"Examining the Impact of a Step Game Approach to Teaching Volleyball

on Student Tactical Decision Making and Skill Execution During Game

Play." Journal of Human Movement Studies 48: 469-92.

Metzler, Mike W. 2011. Instructional Models for Physical Education. 3 ed.


Mitchell, Steve, Judith Oslin, and Linda Griffin. 2006. Teaching sport concepts

and skills: A tactical games approach. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Oslin, Judith, Steve Mitchell, and Linda Griffin. 1998. "The Game Performance

Assessment Instrument (GPAI): Development and Preliminary

Validation." Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 17 (2): 231-43.

Pereira, Felismina, Amândio Graça, Minna Blomqvist, and Isabel Mesquita.

2011. "Instructional approaches in youth volleyball training settings

according to player's age and gender." International Journal of Sport

Psychology 42 (3): 227-44.

Pereira, José, Peter A. Hastie, Rui Araújo, Cláudio Farias, Ramiro Rolim, and

Isabel Mesquita. 2015. "A Comparative Study of Students’ Track and

Field Technical Performance in Sport Education and in a Direct

Instruction Approach." Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 14 (1):

118-27.

Pritchard, Tony, Andrew Hawkins, Robert Wiegand, and Jonathan N. Metzler.

2008. "Effects of Two Instructional Approaches on Skill Development,

Knowledge, and Game Performance." Measurement in Physical

Education and Exercise Science 12 (4): 219-36.

Pritchard, Tony, Starla McCollum, Jacqueline Sundal, and Gavin Colquit. 2014.

"Effect of the Sport Education Tactical Model on Coeducational and

Single Gender Game Performance." The Physical Educator 71 (1): 132-

54.

Empirical Study 3

151

R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL

http://www.R-project.org/.

Siedentop, Daryl 1986. "Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching."

Educational Researcher 15 (2): 4-14.

Siedentop, Daryl, Peter A. Hastie, and Hans Van der Mars. 2011. Complete

Guide to Sport Education. 2 ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Tabachnick, Barbara G., and Linda S. Fidell. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics.

5 ed. Boston: Pearson.

Turner, Adrian P., and Thomas J. Martinek. 1999. "An Investigation Into

Teaching Games for Understanding: Effects on Skill, Knowledge, and

Game Play." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 70 (3): 286-96.

Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wallhead, Tristan, and Mary O'Sullivan. 2005. "Sport education: Physical

education for the new millennium?" Physical Education and Sport

Pedagogy 10 (2): 181-210.

Wickham, Hadley, and Romain Francois. 2014. dplyr: A Grammar of Data

Manipulation. New York: Spinger.

Summary for practioners

The results of the present study have shown the benefits of the

implemmentation of Sport Education beyond a single seasons exeperience.

Students become progressively familiarized with the organizational and

instructional processes of the model, spent less time in these activities and,

consequently more time in learning tasks.

In addition, the SGA was effective in developing volleyball skills, by

providing a framework for the content and learning tasks taught during the

seasons. Skill practice were presented mostly as game-like situations, notably

through the use of structuring and adaptation tasks, and according to the

problems disclosed by the game play within a step-by-step approach.

Empirical Study 3

152

Finally, this study also showed the importance of the use of graded

competition in order to reduce the difference between skill-levels during game

play. Specifically, each team creates sub-teams who then compete within the

same skill-level and games may differ with respect to regulation (court size,

scoring, etc.).

IV. Final Considerations _________________________________________________

Final Considerations

155


The motivation behind the current research was grounded on a keen

interest concerning the study of instructional models, in particularly Sport

Education (SE). These final thoughts result from the combined and integrated

analysis of the partial contributions from each of the four studies that compose

the current dissertation. This holistic interpretation of the results will allow a

deeper understanding of students’ learning and of the teaching and learning

process within SE seasons. Furthermore, the limitations of the present

investigation and future directions for research and practitioners are presented

at the end of this chapter.

Gaps on SE research

In an attempt to scrutinize what is currently known with respect to

students’ learning, several gaps on research in this area have emerged in our

systematic review. Namely, investigation on SE has been showing its

unequivocal impact on students’ personal and social development (e.g.,

motivation, engagement, enjoyment, enthusiasm), but not with respect to

students’ learning and the teaching and learning process that occurs within the

seasons. One major factor in need of further examination is the impact of SE

beyond a single season experience. Indeed, the available research on SE

asserts that the “application of more than one unit consecutively over time may

serve to improve the dynamics of social and instructional systems that occur

within working groups, and consequently improve students’ learning” (Araújo et

al., 2014, p. 856).

Moreover, the actual content taught and learned during the season, as

well as the nature of learning tasks within the instructional task system of the

season have also been identified as gaps on SE research. In fact, despite the

availability of research considering alliances between SE (and other models)

and the specific framework of the contents and learning tasks (Hastie &

Curtner-Smith, 2006; Mesquita et al., 2012; Pritchard et al., 2014), we believe

this body of knowledge is not sufficiently developed, in particular regarding non-


156

invasion games. Beyond that, this review further highlighted the difficulties

associated with investigating the student-coaches’ content knowledge and

instructional skills within SE research. The implementation and subsequent

examination of protocols for student-coaches’ instructional preparation was

therefore proposed.

Additionally, our systematic review enhanced the differentiating effect of

students’ sex and skill-level on learning. As was asserted, “although research

has showed students’ improvements during the participation in Sport Education

seasons, the outcomes remain somewhat ambiguous since some studies report

superior learning outcomes for boys and higher skill-level students while others

studies found superior learning outcomes for girls and lower skill-level students”

(Araújo et al., 2014, p. 852).

In light of the identified gaps in current knowledge, the ensuing empirical

studies (article 2, 3 and 4) intended to fill precisely these breaches. Specifically,

our empirical research sought to examine the combined use of SE and Step-

Game-Approach (SGA) beyond a single season experience upon student-

coaches’ instructional evolution, as well as on students’ learning outcomes,

taking into account students’ sex and skill-level. The (i) combined used of SE

and SGA, (ii) the longitudinal application of the model, and (iii) a proper

preparation of student-coaches trough the application of specific protocols,

concurred to the promotion of improvements in student-coaches’ instructional

skills and, consequently, stimulated improvements in game play by the

students, regardless of sex and skill-level.

The role of studying the first season experience

Our second article intended to analyse students’ improvements in

volleyball during the course of a hybrid season combining SE and SGA, while

simultaneously exploring problems emerging within a SE season. Results have

shown the effectiveness of a hybrid combination of SE and SGA on students’

game play performance in volleyball, namely decision-making, adjustment, and

skill efficacy and efficiency, both in boys and in girls. Nevertheless, results also

suggested a differentiating effect of the model according to the students’ skill-


157

level. While the lower skill-level students improved in all parameters of the

game play, higher skill-level students exhibited a ceiling effect. The nature of

the formal competition has been pointed out as a possible limitation for higher

skill-level students. That is, in this season the competition was the same for all

the students (in this case, mostly 1vs1). Consequently, those students with

higher entry levels should have more challenging content, perhaps dedicating

more time playing 2vs2.

Therefore, we suggest that future seasons (practice and research) should

adjust the content and the learning tasks to the different skill-levels presented

within the season. This could be accomplished by the use of “graded

competition” (Siedentop et al., 2011). Specifically, each team creates sub-

teams, who compete within similar skill-levels. In some cases, the game

themselves may differ, such as court size and/or scoring rules. Furthermore,

student-coaches showed insufficient instructional skills during the peer-assisted

tasks of this first unit, as was shown further ahead in your research. That is,

they failed to organize the tasks with their teammates, to identify their

performance errors and to provide feedback, and also to modify the tasks

whenever necessary. As such, for following seasons to be successful,

improvement of student-coaches’ instructional skills was required.

The potential of protocols for student-coaches’ instructional preparation

The third article intended to evaluate the impact of specific formats for the

instructional preparation of student-coaches. These protocols showed to be

effective in improving student-coaches’ instructional skills (in particular task

presentation, error diagnosis, feedback and task modification), which provided

useful insights regarding the importance of specific formats for student-coaches’

instructional preparation.

Specifically, the first protocol (season 2) began with the teacher modelling

a number of instructional skills (i.e., task presentation and feedback) for the

student-coaches. This first phase allowed student-coaches to have a visual

model of what was expected of them in order to organize the tasks with their

teammates and to provide them with feedback. This protocol also


158

comprehended the implementation of a pre-lesson meeting with the student-

coaches, which allowed the teacher to deliver the tasks to be organized during

the upcoming lesson. In turn, this promoted a greater awareness of how to

organize a lesson in student-coaches, which had not happened during the

previous season. During these meetings the teacher had time to explain the

content to be taught, notably the technical and tactical skills that would be

approached during the lesson (i.e., critical elements, most common errors, etc.),

as well as possible task modifications. This promoted the development of the

student-coaches’ content knowledge, and consequently improved error

diagnosis during peer-assisted tasks, and subsequent provision of feedback.

The teacher also began to incorporate the suggestion of Wallhead and

O’Sullivan’s (2007) of a “coaches’ corner” in order to guide and support the

student-coaches throughout the practice. Their instructional improvements

allowed the teacher to move away from the centre of the instructional process

and a truly student-centred environment started to emerge, thereby helping

students in becoming more active, creative and social learners (Dyson et al.,

2004; Perkins, 1999).

During the third season, the preparation of student-coaches went even

further through the use of video watching and planning sheets. Given the

increased complexity of the content being taught during this third unit, the

videos allowed student-coaches to more deeply analyse and reflect upon their

intervention during the tasks, and consequently to solve the remaining

instructional issues that had been observed in the previous unit. These included

(i) the lack of demonstration, keywords and critical components during task

presentation; (ii) difficulties in providing feedback on more complex tasks (such

as adaptation tasks); (iii) prescriptive style of student-coaches’ intervention; and

(iv) the lack of modification by exaggeration. On the other hand, the planning

sheets served to overcome potential communication inadequacies between the

teacher and the student-coaches, and could be consulted whenever student-

coaches had doubts or had forgotten some issue pertaining the task (e.g., key-

points, organization, among others).


159

Not only did student-coaches improve their instruction during this third

season (e.g., proper task presentation, feedback during adaptation tasks, task

modification by exaggeration, among others), they further moved from a

prescriptive toward a more constructivist profile in their intervention. Unlike what

had been verified in the first two seasons, student-coaches started using

questioning as a pedagogical strategy in their intervention (e.g. feedback), and

discussing the didactical intention and the organization of the lesson with their

teammates, both of them important features within a constructivist and student-

centred approach such is the case of SE (Dyson et al., 2004). These

improvements on student-coaches’ instruction operated to surpass some of the

remaining scepticism of both researchers and practitioners with respect to

student-coaches’ instructional skills. In essence, the problem relied not on the

lack of student-coaches’ instructional skills but rather on the lack of student-

coaches’ preparation throughout SE seasons. This might serve to move away

from decontextualized and sometimes boring experiences in Physical Education

(PE) (Siedentop et al., 2011) towards a “peripheral participation in a community

of practice of exercise, and physical recreation” (Kirk & Macdonald, 1998),

without underestimating the substantive value of students’ learning (Mesquita et

al., 2012).

The application of SE and SGA beyond a single season experience

The application of this hybrid model beyond a single season experience

was also effective to improve students’ game play performance (article 4). All

students continued to improve from their first experience with the model up until

the end of the investigation, regardless of sex and skill-level. The consecutive

application of both SE and SGA benefited the dynamics of the social and

instructional systems within the season and consequently improved students’

learning. In particular, the complexity of the organization of group activities

within a SE season (such as the allocation of students to teams, the

organization of competition games, and the distribution of within game roles,

among others) had an impact on the effective time for instruction and practice

and, subsequently, on the time available for learning.


160

Since the participation of students was not limited to a single season

experience, they had the opportunity to become progressively more familiarized

with these SE processes throughout the seasons, thereby spending less time

on organizational tasks and, accordingly, more time on learning tasks. As

exemplified in the fourth empirical paper, during the first season students took

too long to change from one game to another within the competition lessons or

from one learning task to another on the practice sessions; they also spent way

too much time to start the performance records as statisticians. Nevertheless, in

the following seasons students became more familiarized with the organization

and routines of the lesson (such as teachers’ signals), thus having had more

time dedicated for learning tasks.

In sum, these results contribute to the idea that longer and more

consecutive units over time are beneficial, since students have shown a

sustainable progress throughout the three years spanned by this research.

Nevertheless, several educational authorities throughout the globe persist in

limiting the time that can be spent on one particular content area in PE (Hastie

et al., 2013; Kirk, 2010).

The potential of the combined use of SE and SGA

The combined use of SE and the didactical framework of the SGA model

were crucial to students’ learning throughout the three years (article 2 and 4). In

fact, during the three seasons students were presented with a number of

pedagogies that enhanced their learning. First and foremost, game forms were

introduced to students according to their skill level within a step-by-step

approach. Additionally, technical and tactical skills were taught according to the

problems disclosed during their game play. Specifically, previous to the study

students’ had had no previous experience with volleyball and, as such, the first

seasons were dedicated to the first step of the SGA model (mostly 1vs1 game

and overhead pass) (article 2). Throughout the two following seasons students

evolved to the 2vs2 game and higher skill-level students were ready to learn the

3vs3 game at the end of the study (article 4). This step-by-step progression

throughout the three seasons allowed that the complexity of both the formal and


161

the functional structures remained aligned with students’ game play, tactical

awareness and skill level.

The SGA also allowed content and learning tasks to be presented to

students as game-like situations. Namely, the use of mostly adaptation and

structuring tasks rather that isolated skills practice allowed students to practice

within the same technical and tactical structure and variability of practice that

resemble the actual game conditions (Mesquita et al., 2015; Pereira et al.,

2015). These tasks promoted the integration of technical and tactical

components, thereby stimulating significant gains in overall game performance

(which comprehends both technical and tactical skills), while concurring to

invalidate the technical/tactical dualism previously found and refuted by other

researchers (French et al., 1996). These results therefore support the need for

holistically grounded programs rather than instruction of isolated skills taken as

building blocks for game competence.

Together, these results suggested that the SGA model provides a

profitable and pursuable didactical framework for the teaching of volleyball in a

SE environment. This alliance between these two instructional models with

different frameworks allowed to achieve students’ learning outcomes without

losing the affective and social goals of SE that are so valued by the students.

The impact of the design on the differentiating effect of student’s sex and skill-

level

SE research has been highlighting a differentiating and equivocal effect of

sex and skill-level on students’ learning (see the systematic review for a more

in-depth analysis). As aforementioned, the second article of this dissertation

sustained these claims. Despite both boys and girls making improvements from

the begging to the end of the unit, in this study lower skill-level students were

the primary beneficiaries of the hybrid unit. Nevertheless, and since the present

investigation was not limited to one season, it was possible to follow the

recommendations suggested in the second article during the implementation of

the following two seasons (article 4). Indeed, the graded competition applied on


162

both the second and third seasons allowed the improvements of all students,

broadly higher and lower skill-level students.

In addition, the adjustment of content and learning tasks in SGA according

to students’ skill-level was crucial to the improvements of all students,

expanding the benefits to higher skill-level students. In particular, all students

participated in the same tasks but the difficulty of the tasks was adjusted to

each student’s skill-level by the use of task modification by representation

(contacts per player/team, easier scoring, etc.). Even so, despite the

improvements of all the students, lower skill-level students seemed to achieve

greater gains in performance during the last season. This has suggested that

the mere adaptation of content and learning tasks was not sufficient to promote

superior learning in higher-skill level students, who may require more

challenging game formats (in this particular case, possibly more time dedicated

to the 3vs3 would have been beneficial).

Notwithstanding, our research has supported the focus of SE on inclusion

and on equal participation of both boys and girls in PE. Unlike the case of

previous research (e.g., Brock et al., 2009; Curnow & Macdonald, 1995; Hastie,

1998a, 1998b; Hastie & Curtner-Smith, 2006; Hastie et al., 2009; Mesquita et

al., 2012; Pereira et al., 2015), here both boys and girls improved on their game

play performance throughout the three seasons. The learning environment

sustained by the combined use of SE and SGA, coupled with a longitudinal

design, seemed to be effective in minimizing inequities and power imbalances

between boys and girls, including: (i) access to game roles on a rotating basis;

(ii) formal competition schedule ensuring the same opportunities for girls and

boys; (iii) student-coaches being chosen by the teacher; (iv) accountability

systems promoting similar learning opportunities for boys and girls (such as the

ball having to be contacted by all the players, the promotion of three contacts

before sending the ball to the opponents’ court, and ensuring that all students

should participate in all functions of a given drill); and (v) affiliation features of

SE, allowing students to practice together and to support and hold each other

accountable.


163

These equity-promoting features were prompted during the first season

and were maintained and consolidated throughout the second and third

seasons, which may have given the students more time to appreciate them.

Students started feeling confortable with their teammates participating in all the

learning tasks regardless of sex, even where powerful positions were

concerned (e.g., student-coaches, referees). This lack of influence of students’

sex on students’ improvements during this study suggests that perhaps the

most important question on PE iniquities is not students’ sex (e.g., Ennis, 1999;

Flintoff, 2008; Flintoff et al., 2008; Nicaise et al., 2007; Shimon, 2005; Solmon et

al., 2003; Williams & Bedward, 2010; Williams et al., 2000) but instead more

implicit and occult variables operating within the working groups, such as

students’ status (Brock et al., 2009).

The fidelity of instruction and inclusion of a retention test

Our research also sought to respond to other two factors highlighted by

recent research, notably issues concerning the fidelity of the implementation of

model-based instruction and the inclusion of a retention test. Respectively, to

date research has been scarce in providing detailed descriptions of the

curricular elements of the unit together with a detailed validation of model

implementation (Harvey & Jarret, 2014; Hastie & Casey, 2014). Since

responses to model based approaches has tended to be specific (Metzler,

2011), the inclusion of rich descriptions of the program context emerges as

crucial, including (but not limited to) teacher expertise and contextual features.

In this way, a checklist adapted from previous research on both SE and SGA

was developed and applied by two experts in order to verify whether the

instruction was consistent with the accepted standards of both models (article 2

and 4). In addition, and despite teacher’s expertise with PE (more than 20 years

of teaching experience) and with both models (one year and a master’s

degree), proper preparation was crucial to an instruction aligned with the spirit

of its creators.

In the same line, as underlined by our review, most of SE research only

analysed students’ improvements before and at the end of the unit. These


164

studies did not consider the application of a retention test in order to verify the

maintenance of the improvements after the end of the season. Only with the

application of a retention test will it be possible to produce an accurate

assessment of students’ improvements (Haerens & Tallir, 2012). Thus, in our

empirical research we considered this issue properly, hence ensuring the

application of a retention test. The observed students not only improved in

almost all dimensions of game play, they further maintained those

improvements until the retention test. Even though the three seasons were

separated by approximately 12 months, students retained the improvements

throughout the three seasons.

Limitations and future directions

The present dissertation has shown to be important for SE research,

especially since it has responded to calls to examine factors that to date had

warranted further investigation. Notwithstanding, throughout the four articles

other directions that future research might follow have emerged. In particular,

articles two and four have provided an analysis of more explicit and measurable

variables (e.g. sex and skill level) related to the goals of SE. Nevertheless,

future research is encouraged to examine the impact of other variables on

students’ learning, such us those related with the teacher (e.g., experience with

the model and sport content knowledge), and students (e.g., the

aforementioned students’ status, prior sport experiences, motivation, and

engagement).

Overall, SE research should start making use of more sophisticated

research designs, changing the focus of the investigations towards more

qualitative perspectives. Case studies and action research designs will allow a

deeply understanding of teaching and learning experiences. In particular,

action-research designs allow a close monitoring in the implementation of

pedagogical approaches (Casey & Dyson, 2009; Casey et al., 2009), and

consequently let teachers achieve better and farther-reaching results when

used to accomplish pedagogical change (Van Looy & Goegebeur, 2007). In

turn, case studies allow the investigation of a particular phenomenon within its


165

real-life context, holding thus the potential to achieve a deeper understanding of

a particular or unique situation. Within this participatory research, several

methods are available (including diaries and visual methods such as photo-

elicitation and photo-voice) that are considered pertinent ways for participants to

engage in research and generated data (Enright & O'Sullivan, 2012).

In addition, there is a need to examine the potential of SE to positively

transform students’ experience beyond PE. In this vein, future research should

analyse school communities’ partnerships. Indeed, one of the most important

goals of SE is the development of students’ enthusiasm and consequently

promoting students voluntary involvement in sport outside of the school context.

Notwithstanding, and despite SE having been developed to link PE experiences

with the promotion of a sport culture, to date no reports of research were found

supporting this connection (Hastie et al., 2011; Wallhead & O’Sullivan, 2005;

Penney et al. 2002).

In the same line, research should also analyse the effectiveness of the

application of SE on other contexts beyond PE lessons, such as institutionalized

sport contexts. SE has shown to be effective in the development of game play

performance in a variety of sports, including non-invasion sports (article 2 and

article 4), invasion games (e.g., Mesquita et al., 2012) and individual sports

(e.g., Hastie et al., 2013; Hastie et al., 2009). In addition, several studies have

also been reporting students’ enthusiasm and enjoyment as result of a

participation in SE (e.g., Hastie & Sinelnikov, 2006; Kim et al., 2006). Therefore,

the application of SE in institutionalized sport contexts (or at least some of its

features) might have the potential to promote the same performance

improvements but accompanied with SE’s intended personal and social

outcomes. This is particularly relevant given recent accounts of SE’s superiority

when compared to more traditional instruction models (Pritchard et al., 2008;

Pereira et al., 2015).

Moreover, as aforementioned, SGA provided a crucial contribution to the

implementation of SE. Notwithstanding, as it happened with the present study,

to date research has only focused on the first steps of the model (1vs1 and

2vs2). Therefore, future research should examine the impact of SGA on higher


166

skill-level stages (such as 3vs3, 4vs4 and 6vs6). In addition, the present

dissertation has shown the effectiveness of this didactical framework to

teaching volleyball on school contexts. Nonetheless, it is our perception that this

model could potentially fit to teaching other non-invasion games (such as tennis

and badminton) on school, or in fact in any context (for instance, club context).

Future research should therefore explore this issue and provide empirical data

that could sustain or hinder these perceptions.

Per last, given Metzler’s (2011) notion that there is no “one best way to

teach”, the combination of SGA should not be limited to SE model. Many more

instructional models exist that could profit from the didactical framework of SGA

applied to the teaching of non-invasion games.

Recommendations for practice

The results of the present study have clearly shown the benefits of the

implementation of SE beyond a single season experience. Even though

governmental regulations sometimes do not allow consecutive applications of

SE, future application of this model (or perhaps any model-based instruction)

may consider the application of more than one season experience over time.

Furthermore, SGA was effective in developing volleyball skills by providing

a framework for the content and learning tasks taught during the seasons. Skill

practices were presented mostly as game-like situations, notably through the

use of structuring and adaptation tasks, always in accordance with the problems

disclosed by the game play within a step-by-step approach. Future

implementation of SE should contemplate a combined use of SE and other

models, providing a proper framework to the content and learning tasks during

the season. In addition, the use of graded competition must also to be

considered in order to provide opportunities for learning to all students

regardless their skill-level. Specifically, each team may create sub-teams, which

then compete within the same skill-level. Also, games may differ with respect to

regulation (court size, scoring, etc.).

Finally, student-coaches’ content knowledge and instructional skills can be

potentially problematic during SE season. Even though we are aware of the


167

organizational difficulties associated with the protocols implemented in this

study (for instance, the application of an extracurricular meeting), PE teachers

should consider the need to provide effective student-coaches’ preparation

through specific protocols (for instance, using structured pre-lesson meetings

with student-coaches, coaches’ corners, teacher’s scaffolding, etc.). This study

has shown some pedagogical strategies that can assist teachers in better

preparing student-coaches. In this way, the protocols implemented during this

study will be available to the school community.

References

Alexander, K., Taggart, A., & Luckman, J. (1998). Pilgrims progress: the Sport

Education crusade down under. Journal of Physical Education and

Recreation and Dance, 7(3), 243-267.

Araújo, R., Mesquita, I., & Hastie, P. (2014). Review of the Status of Learning in

Research on Sport Education: Future Research and Practice. Journal of

Sports Science and Medicine, 13(4), 846-858.




Casey, A., & Dyson, B. (2009). The implementation of models-based practice in

physical education trough action research. European Physical Education

Review, 15(2), 175-199.

Casey, A., Dyson, B., & Campbell, A. (2009). Action research in physical

education: focusing beyond myself through cooperative learning.

Educational Action Research, 17(3), 407-423.

Curnow, J., & Macdonald, D. (1995). Can Sport Education be gender inclusive:

a case study in an upper primary school. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles

Journal, 42, 9-11.


168



Quest, 56, 226-240.

Ennis, C. D. (1999). Creating a Culturally Relevant Curriculum for Disengaged

Girls. Sport, Education, and Society, 4, 31-49.

Enright, E., & O'Sullivan, M. (2012). ‘Producing different knowledge and

producing knowledge differently’: rethinking physical education research

and practice through participatory visual methods. Sport, Education and

Society, 17(1), 35-55.

Flintoff, A. (2008). Targeting Mr. Average: participation, gender equity, and

school sport partnerships. Sport, Education and Society, 13(4), 413-431.

Flintoff, A., Fitzgerald, H., & Scraton, S. (2008). The challanges of

intersectionality: researching difference in physical education.

International Studies in Sociology of Education, 18(2), 73-85.

French, K., Werner, P., Rink, J., Taylor, K., & Hussey, K. (1996). The effects of

a 3-week unit of tactical, skill, or combined tactical and skill instruction on

Badminton performance of ninth-grade students. Journal of Teaching in


Goodyear, V., & Dudley, D. (2015). “I’m a Facilitator of Learning!”

Understanding What Teachers and Students Do Within Student-

Centered Physical Education Models. Quest, 67, 274-289.

Haerens, L., & Tallir, I. (2012). Experimental research methods in physical

education and sports. In K. Armour & D. Macdonald (Eds.), Research

Methods in Physical Education and Youth Sport (pp. 149-162). London:

Routledge.

Harvey, S., & Jarret, K. (2014). A review of the game-centred approaches to

teaching and coaching literature since 2006. Physical Education and

Sport Pedagogy, 19(3), 278-300.

Hastie, P. A. (1998a). The Participation and Perceptions of Girls Within a Unit of

Sport Education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17(2), 157-

171.


169

Hastie, P. A. (1998b). Skill and tactical development during a sport education

season. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 69(4), 368-379.

Hastie, P. A., Calderón, A., Rolim, R., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). The

Development of Skill and Knowledge During a Sport Education Season

of Track and Field Athletics. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,

84(3), 336-344.

Hastie, P. A, & Casey, A. (2014). Fidelity in models-based practice research in

sport pedagogy: A guide for future investigations. Journal of Teaching in


Hastie, P. A., & Curtner-Smith, M. D. (2006). Influence of a hybrid Sport


his students. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(1), 1-27.




Hastie, P. A., & Sinelnikov, O. (2006). Russian students’ participation in and

perceptions of a season of Sport Education. European Physical


Hastie, P. A., Sinelnikov, O., & Guarino, A. J. (2009). The development of skill


Journal of Sport Science, 9(3), 133-140.

Kim, J., Penney, D., Cho, M., & Choi, H. (2006). ‘Not business as usual’: Sport

Education pedagogy in practice. European Physical Education Review,

12(3), 361-379.

Kirk, D. (2010). Physical Education Futures. Oxon: Routledge.

Kirk, D., & Macdonald, D. (1998). Situated learning in physical education.

Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 17, 376-387.

Mesquita, I., Afonso, J., Coutinho, P., & Araújo, R. (2015). Modelo de

abordagem progressiva ao jogo no ensino do voleibol: conceção,

metodologia, estratégias pedagógicas e avaliação. In F. Tavares (Ed.),

Jogos Desportivos Coletivos: ensinar a jogar (2 ed., pp. 73-122). Porto:

Editora FADEUP.


170

Mesquita, I., Farias, C., & Hastie, P. A. (2012). The impact of a hybrid Sport


decision making, skill execution and overall game performance.

European Physical Education Review, 18(2), 205-219.



Nicaise, V., Bois, K., Fairclough, S., Amorose, A., & Geneviève, G. (2007). Girls'

and boys' perceptions of physical eduation teachers' feedback: effects on

performance and psychological responses. Journal of Sport Sciences,

25(8), 915-926.

Penney, D., Clarke, G., & Kinchin, G. (2002). Developing Physical Education as

a "Connective Specialism": Is Sport Education the Answer? Sport,

Education and Society, 7(1), 55-64.





Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher,

57, 6-11.

Pritchard, T., McCollum, S., Sundal, J., & Colquit, G. (2014). Effect of the Sport

Education Tactical Model on Coeducational and Single Gender Game

Performance. The Physical Educator, 71(1), 132-154.

Shimon, J. (2005). Red alert: gender equity issues in secondary physical

education. Journal of Physical Edcaution Recreation and Dance, 76, 6-

10.

Siedentop, D. (2002). Sport Education: A Retrospective. Journal of Teaching in




Solmon, M., Lee, A., Belcher, D., Harrison, L., & Wells, L. (2003). Beliefs about

gender appropriateness, abiity and competence in physical activity.



171

Van Looy, L., & Goegebeur, W. (2007). Teachers and teacher trainees as

classroom researchers: Beyond Utopia? Educational Action Research,

15(1), 107-126.




Williams, A., & Bedward, J. (2010). Gender, culture and the generation gap:

student and teacher perceptions of aspects of national curriculum

pjysilca education. Sport Educaiton and Society, 6(1), 53-66.

Williams, A., Bedward, J., & Woodhouse, J. (2000). An inclusive national

curriculum? The experience of adolescent girls. European Journal of


ERRATA

Errata regarding the dissertation “Long-term Implementation of Sport

Education and Step-Game Approach: The Development of Students’

Volleyball Competence and Student-Coaches’ Instructional Skills”.

Rui Manuel Flores Araújo

Page Line Where it is

written

Should be

written

9 5 mode model

16 17 ...three SE

seasons

...three SE-SGA

seasons

33 23 36,954 3695

34 2 No paragraph

46 30 qualitative quantitative

86 2 Boys Higher

86 2 Girls Lower

101 10 …cooperate with

the in

…cooperate with

the partner in the

106 11 …where they

need to in this

acquisition task.

…where they

need to.

long-term implementation of sport education and step-game ... · ensino. o modelo de abordagem...

Documents